Slashdot Mirror

Leave it to a denialist to distort the statements that people say.

This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy, with problems such as forest dying or ozone hole.

He's merely differentiating using the free market to regulate gov't mandated carbon release restrictions from environmental issues. Reducing global warming with economic policy doesn't fix forests dying or ozone holes.

This may be a useful article to illustrate what the Duplicitious Coward is trying to do.

Yeah. Sad that a Forestry PhD from my Alma Mater can be such an idiot. However, as the saying goes, when the GPA->F for engineering, they go to Forestry/Business.

No, not sciency enough.

found online, not vouching for its accuracy

Independent verification of FBI Anon claims

1995: Martin Indyk, Dennis Ross, Izaac Herzog, and an unidentified Israeli representative meet to discuss the possibility of Bill Clinton pardoning Marc Rich in exchange for Rich funding the PLO, a Muslim terrorist organization committed to Israel's destruction.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/p...

Qatar would buy a stake in Marc Rich's company Glencore after his death, and Qatar and Glencore would operate in concert afterwards.

2000: Marc Rich associate Michael Steinhardt controls the DLC and Progressive Policy Institute.
http://www.deepcapture.com/200...

2003: George Soros and Morton Halperin placed John Podesta as founding head of the Center for American Progress.
http://www.discoverthenetworks... https://archive.is/Gb2FV

Under Podesta's watch, unknown persons placed accused Hamas fundraiser Faiz Shakir as Vice President of the Center for American Progress and chief editor of Think Progress. In 2011 Faiz Shakir and Wajahat Ali produced the report "Fear Inc." smearing national security analysts and political activists who oppose the Muslim Brotherhood, including liberal Muslims.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fp... https://archive.is/tOxwC

Online rumors have attempted to connect the art trading of John Podesta's brother Tony Podesta with Qatari art purchases of works by Damien Hirst and Jeff Koons who have been hosted by Qatar Museums.
http://qz.com/764975/qatars-oi...

The Podesta Group lobbyied for Qatar Petroleum in 2013.
https://www.desmogblog.com/201...

2004: The Awan brothers begin employment in the US Congress and will work under Robert Wexler, Xavier Becerra, Gregory Meeks, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and others before they are exposed as a spy ring in 2017.
http://www.politico.com/story/...

2005: Unknown persons placed Emad Shahin and Juliette Kayyem in the Dubai Initiative which produced propaganda to promote the Muslim Brotherhood using the name and reputation of Harvard University.
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvar...
Emad Shahin was convincted in absentia of aiding Hamas and Iran to overthrow the Egyptian government.
http://emadshahin.com/?p=1839
https://news.vice.com/article/...
Juliette Kayyem advocated for Qatari state television network Al-Jazeera and wrote "The War On Terror Is Over" to discourage continued resistance to al-Qaeda.
https://www.boston.com/bostong...
https://www.boston.com/bostong...

2005: Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal paid Georgetown University $20 million to continue hosting John Esposito's Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, which was originally founded in 1993 with a grant from PLO board member Hasib Sabagh

https://www.desmogblog.com/201...
https://theintercept.com/2017/...
http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/1...
http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/0...

And Carl Icahn is just one of the many cronies that Trump put in positions of power. Only an imbecile (to borrow your own language) who never peeked out of his echo chamber could have missed all the stories that have been broken.

... and that includes the climate scientists. I imagine it would be hard to find a climate scientist who would be willing to bet his house on a measurable and non-trivial prediction about the future -- one that he would make from his climate models in the span of a few years.

I don't think anyone has bet a house, but a scientist and economist did bet £1000 against some of the GWPF advisors, (spoiler: the GWPF people lost)

Of course, Bill Nye offered to bet $20,000 against Marc Morano's predictions of cooling but Morano turned him down. He offered a similar bet to Joe Bastardi who also turned him down.

Sure. Once Coal and Big Oil stop getting subsidies from the government: https://www.desmogblog.com/201...

Then why don't we go right ahead and give renewable energy the same amount in subsidied that coal and big oil have gotten for the last umpteen years and let them build their infrastructure before finally pulling them off the US government's teat.

After all, fair's fair. Right? We're all about capitalism and letting companies stand on their own two feet.

Yes, it's correct. It might surprise you, but there really isn't a grand oil funded conspiracy. The grant money you get if you toe the party line is by orders of magnitude bigger than if you dare being a contrarian.

I don't know, you can make a pretty good living being a climate change denier. And those leaked documents from the Heartland Institute show that they can be quite generous:

funding for high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist AGW message. At the moment, this funding goes primarily to Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 per month, plus expenses), Robert Carter ($1,667 per month), and a number of other individuals, but we will consider expanding it, if funding can be found.

http://www.iflscience.com/envi... (2016)

"there is an overwhelming consensus ( http://www.desmogblog.com/2012... (2012)) when it comes to the link between human activity and climate change. The figure most frequently cited is that 97 percent of scientists agree on the link, but a new meta-analysis puts that figure at 99.9 percent."

It has a nice easy pie chart for you too.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2016...

BOOM! I gave you evidence that your positions are counter-factual, such as the Canadian Geographic article that polar bear numbers are indeed up, and that the surface temperature data is being fiddled as stated by Iceland's chief meteorologist, and that the climate sensitivity keeps getting adjusted down and still claimed as a far too high value (which means, CAGW is falsified).

Unfortunately, you didn't give me any evidence to contradict my views, I'm just tried of correcting you. For example:

1. The Canadian Geographic article says of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, 8 are in decline, 3 are growing, 2 are stable and 6 are unknown. You seem to only see that 3 are growing while ignoring that 8 are in decline, and that seems to be simple confirmation bias on your part

2. something which seems to be common thread running through all of your arguments. All evidence that you are wrong is ignored and any evidence that you might be correct is accepted without question or even examination.

3. You showed one instance where the climate sensitivity estimate had it's lower range dropped. It was raised onc (4th report) e and lowered once (5th report), it was 1.5 to 4.5C in the first report and 1.5C to 4.5C in the fifth report, which is explicitly what I told you. Now, I don't know why you are arguing about this but like everything else you have written about climate change you are clearly, factually, and demonstrably wrong, but I'm sure you'll invent another excuse to justify your refusal to accept reality.
4. The article you linked is a crock, it wasn't Iceland's chief meterologist who said it was being fiddled with, it was Christopher Booker, who's a columnist for the Telegraph and an anti-science crank, Here's a video explaining what the adjustments that Booker is complaining about are and why they are needed.

That's three major mistakes in one sentence, and it's one of your better sentences. A fact which should horrify anyone with half a brain. The simple fact is that everything you think you know is wrong but I am no longer willing to spend my time correcting you (and having the corrections ignored).

1. What you are experiencing is called "cognitive dissonance". You know the statements I make are true, but they conflict with your indoctrination, so you reject reality and instead decide to continue with your programmed responses. You claim others are "crazy" yet it is you who is unable to accept facts due to your programming. That makes you the irrational one who is acting "crazy".

No, what I am experiencing is a condescending jackass who thinks he's clever, but is actually particularly ignorant, dense and, I suspect, more than a little bit slow. I have become weary of your boorish behaviour and your plain fucked up insane bullshit. You are consistently and endlessly wrong, but I don't have the time to debunk 20 or 30 insane claims in every single one of your posts. You pile on the disinformation and insanity and it's just not worth my time to debate you any more.

The Scientific Method requires me to examine your arguments and evidence. You will notice I did, that I read through the sources you gave. What you didn't understand was how the sources were dissembling, but when their data was interpreted properly they support the climate realists position, and require that the Null Hypothesis be selected over the alarmist's empirically falsified CAGW. You are on the wrong side of history.

You wouldn't recognize the Scientific Method if it bit you on the a

I suspect he is talking about this http://www.nationalreview.com/...

How odd, thatDoctor Viner's statment that snow would become more rare, and that future snow could become a rare and exciting event becomes "No snow last (sic) year 2000 - I'm assuming that was a typo for "past".

Now it is true that the UK newspaper "The Independent did give a false quote of Viner, apparently by a sub-editor. The false quote had a headline "Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past." http://www.desmogblog.com/2013...

But on to some issues with even the Ntional Review article - damn, the NR was a hellava lot better when W.F. Buckly Jr ran it.

They use three winters as a refutation of AGW, and even gloat over the recent few cold winters - to which I say they can go fuck themselves.

But the concept that three winters of cooler than normal winter do not make for a refutation of AGW, and that someone can simplymake shit up, doesn't mean that the person actually said that.

Now in the Northeast of the US, the previous two winters were cooler that what we are used to lately. But yeah, that's weather. In other places it was warmer. Weather. This winter where I live, I used the snowblower exactly once. And only a third of a tank of gasoline in it - also weather It's almost 80 degrees today, and I've ridden my motorcycle without any jacket on in every month of the past year. Weather. I make no claims as does the National Review that this year refutes denialist claims. Did I mention they were a lot better under W.F. Buckley Jr?

I do make claims that when the whole globe is warming up on average, and multiples of years are above the old averages, now that's starting to be climate.

Onw swallow dos not make a summer. But hundreds of them trampling your lawn, eating your goldfinch food, and shitting all over your patio - do.

The coal industry is crashing. Peabody coal, the largest coal company in the US just went bankrupt. The reason: competition from renewables and cheaper LNG, and dropping Chinese demand. China has a huge air pollution problem caused primarily by coal generation. They are moving to renewables in a big way.

You do realize all of that climate gate conspiracy bullshit has been discredited and that you're linking to something from 2009, right? ALL of that drivel which claimed to show manipulation was pretty much bullshit.

So either you like to trot this out because you haven't kept up to date, or you know damned well you're posting links to stale information which has been discredited.

Because, really, a Telegraph article from 2009 about how the Russians have confirmed that climate data was manipulated? That's about the least quality source of information you could pick.

In which case I assume you know you're full of shit. If you don't, well, you should fix that.

I forgot to paste this in sorry. http://desmogblog.com/2015/02/...

Patrick Moore is an industry shill if there ever was one. Yes, claiming to be a Greenpeace founder is a nice gimmick, but it's not true at all: http://www.desmogblog.com/2014... - Also, when did the Heartland Institute ( http://www.desmogblog.com/hear... ) become a source for Slashdot? This is a very interesting post+comment thread, first time that sanity has not instantly overwhelmed some tentative /. climate science denial.

Patrick Moore is an industry shill if there ever was one. Yes, claiming to be a Greenpeace founder is a nice gimmick, but it's not true at all: http://www.desmogblog.com/2014... - Also, when did the Heartland Institute ( http://www.desmogblog.com/hear... ) become a source for Slashdot? This is a very interesting post+comment thread, first time that sanity has not instantly overwhelmed some tentative /. climate science denial.

Er, yeah, right http://www.desmogblog.com/2013.... Perhaps not so clear cut after all but typical lawyer and corrupt judge shenanigans.

Seriously what part did you miss with regard to turning the ground into a massive soda fountain and unknown fault lines. Fault lines by the way a big old cracks in the earth, not tiny little ones but great bloody big ones, that run for many kilometres and are very deep. So boob, what happens when you crack a pressure vessel and put it under pressure, well, surprise, surprise, surprise, it leaks. Turn the ground into a pressure vessel where there is a fault line and it will leak.

Judith Curry, head of the geophysical department at GA Tech: http://www.desmogblog.com/judi...

-Funded by oil companies.
-Denies the scientific consensus.
-Says the IPCC actually proves that cliamte change isnt happening.
-Says "climates changes all the time anyway".
-Is not a climate scientist, but writes about it often anyway.

Senator Inhofe is a well-known climate change denier. That he is in such a position makes me want to weep.

(See eg http://www.desmogblog.com/jame... )

For counterpoint book recommendations, I suggest:

'The Merchants of Doubt' by Oreskes and Conway
  http://www.merchantsofdoubt.or...

'This Changes Everything' by Naomi Klein
  http://thischangeseverything.o...

I'm not sure of the providence of this citation but it looks authentic.

It's a paper from 1980 about a haulout event in 1978.

The highlighting is done by a person in the pay of the heartland institute, so it likely to be pushing a particularly unscientific agenda. But the paper exists in the scholarly literature. You can often check out the provenance of scholarly papers if you have an internet connection and access to google scholar.

Consider that this might be a normal behavior pattern amongst walruses.

From the first line of your linked paper: In October-November 1978, several thousand living walruses came ashore in at least four localities on St. Lawrence Island where they had not been present before in this century.

There's a strong implication in that that it is not normal behavior.
Note also that the Walruses themselves were not normal: Nearly all of the dead were extremely lean, having less than half as much subcutaneous fat as healthy animals examined in previous years.

I am quite humble about my understandings of their natures. You would do well to be equally humble.

Okay, The scientists at USGS have said that this is due to the retreat of the sea ice, and you humble claim that this is wrong?
I'm not sure that you're using this word "humble" correctly.

It appears for example that this walrus statement comes mostly from the WWF.

It appears to most people that it comes from the US Geological Survey. But the initial findings were by scientists working for NOAA's Aerial Surveys of Arctic Marine Mammals.

That is not a scientific organization but rather an environmental activist organization.

WWF fund and perform a lot of conservation science. But it was the USGS, which is a scientific organization that published the link to climate change.

I am not saying they are wrong but they have a history of very biased analysis.

Such as?

The most extreme example I think would be the application of the Drake Equation to species extinction rates.

I must have missed that press release. Do you have a link to it?

The author of the equation itself disavows it.

I didn't know that. Where did you read that?

That is how you get numbers like "5 million species extinct this year." They're using the drake equation. No organization that uses that equation with a straight face can be taken seriously. Period.

It's not obvious how the Drake Equation, which calculates the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which radio-communication might be possible, could be made to yield "5 million species extinct this year." And that number seems about two orders of magnitude greater than the largest of estimates I've seen. The WWF speculates that we might be losing [10,000 per year](http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/biodiversity/biodiversity/), which is nearer three orders of magnitude lower than that number.

So I look forward to you pointing me to this press release that makes all their other work not to be taken seriously in your eyes.

Because I can't find it.

Also, you should follow the money.

Heartland Institute leak: Susan Crockford of University of Victoria recruited to help think tank undermine IPCC

Heartland Payments to University of Victoria Professor Susan Crockford Probed

Crockford has a conflict of interest, because she is paid to find that things aren't to do with climate change.

Shit with these kind of stories, even the experts aren't allowed to be experts!

Well, it turns out that she isn't an expert in animal behaviour. Her specialty is zooarchaeology which is mostly concerned with how ancient people utilized animals in their cultural and dietary practices. (Disclosure: I'm an archaeologist who works on Vancouver Island where Dr. Crockford is located (University of Victoria). We hire people like Dr. Crockford to carry out studies like this for us.)

Meanwhile, she does appear to be connected to the Heartland Institute. There are lots of references to this via Google, Bing, etc. (Example: http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-payments-university-victoria-professor-susan-crockford-probed).

There are also examples of her denialist stance from the Heartland Institute's own website (Example: http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2012/09/17/polar-bears-successfully-adapt-climate-change-scientist-says). A search of Heartland's site finds that she's quoted or cited on several of their pages, actually (http://policybot.enginez.com/results.engz?uq=crockford).

you didnt debunk anything.

you just linked to another faulty denier site that has itself been proven wrong, and an article that trots out the same "warm period and "little ice age" misconceptions.
Roy Spencer is not a valid source.

Tree ring reliability: ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ):

The divergence problem is a physical phenomenon - tree growth has slowed or declined in the last few decades, mostly in high northern latitudes. The divergence problem is unprecedented, unique to the last few decades, indicating its cause may be anthropogenic. The cause is likely to be a combination of local and global factors such as warming-induced drought and global dimming. Tree-ring proxy reconstructions are reliable before 1960, tracking closely with the instrumental record and other independent proxies.

Medieval Warm Period: ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ) AND ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ):

The Medieval Warm Period predominantly affected the North Atlantic and Europe, not the whole world. While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions.

The Little Ice Age: ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ) AND ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ):

The sceptical argument that current warming is a continuation of the same warming that ended the LIA is unlikely. There is a lack of evidence for a suitable forcing (e.g. the sun) and numerous correlations with known natural forcings that can account for the LIA itself, and the subsequent climate recovery. Taken in isolation, the LIA might cast doubt on the theory of climate change. Considered alongside the empirical evidence, model predictions and a century of scientific research into the climate, recovery from the LIA is not a plausible theory to explain the observed evidence and rate of global climate change.

As for Roy Spencer himself:
-He believes in the "global scientific conspiracy" ...a conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists, and perfect secrecy...
-He believes that they lie to make money off research grants" myths....cause theres just so much money to be made that way...as opposed to being on the payroll of a big oil company, like him.
-Oh, and he also believes that GW cant be happening....because God.

So ya...that's a "wonderful" source you have there.

http://www.desmogblog.com/roy-...
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014...
http://thinkprogress.org/clima...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/R...
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind...

you didnt debunk anything.

you just linked to another faulty denier site that has itself been proven wrong, and an article that trots out the same "warm period and "little ice age" misconceptions.
Roy Spencer is not a valid source.

Tree ring reliability: ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ):

The divergence problem is a physical phenomenon - tree growth has slowed or declined in the last few decades, mostly in high northern latitudes. The divergence problem is unprecedented, unique to the last few decades, indicating its cause may be anthropogenic. The cause is likely to be a combination of local and global factors such as warming-induced drought and global dimming. Tree-ring proxy reconstructions are reliable before 1960, tracking closely with the instrumental record and other independent proxies.

Medieval Warm Period: ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ) AND ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ):

The Medieval Warm Period predominantly affected the North Atlantic and Europe, not the whole world. While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions.

The Little Ice Age: ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ) AND ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ):

The sceptical argument that current warming is a continuation of the same warming that ended the LIA is unlikely. There is a lack of evidence for a suitable forcing (e.g. the sun) and numerous correlations with known natural forcings that can account for the LIA itself, and the subsequent climate recovery. Taken in isolation, the LIA might cast doubt on the theory of climate change. Considered alongside the empirical evidence, model predictions and a century of scientific research into the climate, recovery from the LIA is not a plausible theory to explain the observed evidence and rate of global climate change.

As for Roy Spencer himself:
-He believes in the "global scientific conspiracy" ...a conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists, and perfect secrecy...
-He believes that they lie to make money off research grants" myths....cause theres just so much money to be made that way...as opposed to being on the payroll of a big oil company, like him.
-Oh, and he also believes that GW cant be happening....because God.

So ya...that's a "wonderful" source you have there.

http://www.desmogblog.com/roy-...
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014...
http://thinkprogress.org/clima...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/R...
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind...

You can argue if you like that a ~ 27.3% increase is large but I disagree, since climate sensitivity to CO2... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-07]

Ocean acidification is independent of climate sensitivity, and it's another reason to be concerned about the unprecedented rapidity of our CO2 emissions.

I would also like to point out again that even if acidification is happening, the RESULTS of that acidification are probably less than alarmists have claimed. Example (2010 article): http://www.rationaloptimist.co... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-10]

Lonny Eachus also linked to that misinformation from Matt Ridley, a journalist with a long history of distorting climate science.

In contrast, I quoted from Honisch et al. 2012 (PDF), Knoll et al. 2007 (PDF), and Ken Caldeira’s 2012 AGU lecture. That last link was from my videos section which also includes:

• Andrew Dickson gave a technical 2009 presentation called “Acidic Oceans: Why Should We Care?”
• A series of panels at the 2011 AGU discussed declining reef health and tipping points.

I'm not a chemist or a marine biologist/ecologist, so I read peer-reviewed papers and go to conferences like the AGU to watch lectures by scientists who do specialize and publish in those fields. For instance, consider that 2011 AGU panel on declining reef health. Nina Keul observed one species of foramanifera Glas et al. 2012 (PDF) growing faster as carbonate ion concentration decreases (which happens when CO2 increases). She provided context by noting that this is one species from one experiment, noting that this is like looking at one puzzle piece of a big puzzle.

Then Adina Paytan provides further context by noting that most species aren't like this. She shows Fig. 2 from Crook et al. 2012 (PDF) which shows that only ~3 out of 9 species of coral are present in locations with naturally low pH and notes that "Because these three species are rarely major contributors to Caribbean reef framework, these data may indicate that today’s more complex frame-building species may be replaced by smaller, possibly patchy, colonies of only a few species along the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef."

Finally, Robert Ridin

The Watts example was based solely on what looks to me to be a forged document.

Well, thanks once again for describing your feelings.

We have no evidence that forgeries always state the truth and plenty of evidence that instead they are almost universally intended to commit some variation of fraud.

And you leap from speculating that the document might be forged to assuming it was. Nice one.

Meanwhile (as noted) we have Watt's own admission that he took money from The Heartland Institute.

It's true - there might be another explanation - that she is mentally incompetent.

She posts with regular frequency on her blog. If the above were true, we would have noticed.

The veracity of this statement is undetermined. I suspect that someone could easily parody the writings of a denialist blogger for months at a time and none of the gullible readers would recognise the difference. As I previously noted (and you apparently agree) : Watts himself has made no statement applicable to the topic of his blog (climate science) that both contradicted the mainstream science and was true. Yet even on slashdot readers will reference his blog as proof against science.

Dr Judith's approach is slightly different. She likes to frame ordinary statements in a tone of scandal, as if she has made some groundbreaking statement, or make reference to some ordinary fact in a tone of disbelief without actually contradicting or even disagreeing with it. Reference this one - which is about someone's hurt feelings and decision to resign from sham organisation set up to try and smear a layer of apparent respectability over the ridiculous, self contradictory clutter of assertions that is climate denial. Oooh the scandal.

Or this - meant to be a summary of the NCAR - except Judith tells us she didnt read it. Well, thanks for the tip. That's a devastating critique of a paper you didn't read.

Ok, show me these bales.

Dr Judith openly admits she takes money from big oil for expressing her views. I also note that she openly admits she doesn't know whether climate is forced by anthropogenic means and to what extent. Well Judith, maybe do some reading before commenting on it.

no one can actually use that data to reproduce the results he originally presented.

At this link you can find references to about 10 different independent reconstructions that find the same result as Mann.

Regarding Sullivan's assertions about the ongoing lawsuit, Michael Mann's lawyer basically said the guy is serially wrong, and doesn't know what he is talking about, and I quote:

Response from my lawyer in response to latest claims by #TimBall (more info on him here: http://www.desmogblog.com/timo...) & #JohnOSullivan (more inf on him here: http://www.desmogblog.com/affi... ): The review of Tim Ball’s new book by Hans Schreuder and John O’Sullivan makes preposterous statements concerning Dr. Michael Mann’s lawsuit in the British Columbia Supreme Court against Tim Ball and other defendants. The Mann lawsuit is currently in the discovery phase, with further examinations for discovery (depositions) of the defendants to be scheduled shortly, following which I will either set the action for trial by jury in the usual manner, or bring a summary trial application on behalf of Dr. Mann for damages and injunctive relief. Dr. Ball has not set the matter for trial and there is no motion by Ball currently before the Court. The allegation by Schreuder and O’Sullivan that Dr. Mann has refused to show his metadata and calculations in open court is not true. Their assertion that Dr. Mann faces possible bankruptcy is nonsense. Dr. Mann’s lawsuit against Dr. Ball and other defendants is proceeding through the normal stages prescribed by the BC Supreme Court Civil Rules and Dr. Mann looks forward to judicial vindication at the conclusion of this process. February 22, 2014 Roger D. McConchie Barrister and Solicitor Legal Counsel to Dr. Michael Mann

You live in a world of made-up "facts". Presumably you *think* you are if your beliefs are wrong or right. Presumably.

no one can actually use that data to reproduce the results he originally presented.

At this link you can find references to about 10 different independent reconstructions that find the same result as Mann.

Regarding Sullivan's assertions about the ongoing lawsuit, Michael Mann's lawyer basically said the guy is serially wrong, and doesn't know what he is talking about, and I quote:

Response from my lawyer in response to latest claims by #TimBall (more info on him here: http://www.desmogblog.com/timo...) & #JohnOSullivan (more inf on him here: http://www.desmogblog.com/affi... ): The review of Tim Ball’s new book by Hans Schreuder and John O’Sullivan makes preposterous statements concerning Dr. Michael Mann’s lawsuit in the British Columbia Supreme Court against Tim Ball and other defendants. The Mann lawsuit is currently in the discovery phase, with further examinations for discovery (depositions) of the defendants to be scheduled shortly, following which I will either set the action for trial by jury in the usual manner, or bring a summary trial application on behalf of Dr. Mann for damages and injunctive relief. Dr. Ball has not set the matter for trial and there is no motion by Ball currently before the Court. The allegation by Schreuder and O’Sullivan that Dr. Mann has refused to show his metadata and calculations in open court is not true. Their assertion that Dr. Mann faces possible bankruptcy is nonsense. Dr. Mann’s lawsuit against Dr. Ball and other defendants is proceeding through the normal stages prescribed by the BC Supreme Court Civil Rules and Dr. Mann looks forward to judicial vindication at the conclusion of this process. February 22, 2014 Roger D. McConchie Barrister and Solicitor Legal Counsel to Dr. Michael Mann

You live in a world of made-up "facts". Presumably you *think* you are if your beliefs are wrong or right. Presumably.

The only bill republicans have introduced on greenhouse gasses is one that is trying to strip the EPA of being able to regulate it for new power plants. It was introduced by, you guessed it (well, maybe not you, because so far you've only shown yourself to be dumber than fuck) a congressman from a coal state.

As for the whole "peer reviewed" thing: http://www.desmogblog.com/2014...

So, you're full of shit. And if somehow, for some reason, you're so incredibly stupid to think that people haven't seen republicans have gone off the deep end denying climate science... hell, ALL science... in the past few decades, well, you need to pull your head out of your ass.

First, is the planet getting warmer? On that I'd say there's general agreement, although it is not a 100% consensus.

It's a 99.something% consensus, which is as solid as any consensus among a large population is ever going to get. Out of 13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles from 1991-2012, only 24 reject global warming. (source)

Second, if it is getting warmer, is it caused in large part by human activity or is it part of some natural variation? This is the sticking point. If it's part of a natural variation in temperature -- and I will point out many such variations have happened in the past few million years, all without any input from humans -- then there is no need for us to radically alter our life to stop it because such actions will have no positive climatic effect while having a signficant negative effect on quality of life.

All the evidence we have for previous natural variations show them to be slow (or extremely rapid, as in catastrophically rapid - impact events or super-volcano eruptions); the changes we're seeing today is way too rapid to conform to any known natural cycle. The difference, of course, is that we're around and actively adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere. In short, not a "natural variation".

Third, if it is anthropogenic, what should we do about it? Curtainling greenhouse emissions is an obvious choice, but is it the best one? How severe are the predicted warming effects? The economic and socio-political upheavals from drastic policy changes might be worse than adapting to a changing climate. And how much confidence can we have in the predictions regardless of how severe (or not) they may be?

We don't know; that's the problem. We don't have any crystal balls, so we don't know what the most effective strategy is, or exactly how severe the effects will be. What we do know is that large climate changes historically have been responsible for some of the most drastic extinction events we know of. And it's pretty easy to speculate about what a massive dying-off of e.g. marine life would do to coastal communities - as is the effect on the same communities of rising sea levels.

These are not minor issues. They deserve to be studied and debated *in depth* before drastic action is take, if for no other reason than to determine that we're taking the *most effective* action possible. This whole "the debate is settle and if you don't agree with us you're a denier" smacks of the same kind of thinking that gave us an Earth-centric cosmic model and burned "deniers" as heretics.

No, these are not minor issues, and the ramifications of the decisions are huge. In the end though, doing nothing is probably the worst decision; there is a tipping point somewhere (the edge of the cliff, so to speak) which going past that there is no turning back. More research and discussion is always welcome, but that should not and cannot stop us from starting to act - if nothing else to slow down the rate at which we're approaching that tipping point.

The analogy with the earth-centric cosmic models and burning of a few heretics is really stretching it when we're talking about the possibility of mass extinctions of not only humans but a lot of other species as well.

The earth will survive, and life itself will survive. The question is, will we? And even if we do, in what kind of society? One that has planned for such an eventuality, or one that has had to just react to it. One is liveable, the other is a post-apocalypse society; I know which one I'd rather (have my kids) live in.

Sure, but anyone who claims something without outstanding evidence cannot be considered a skeptic...

It depends on prior plausibility.

If the claim is that throughout the global educational and research institutions there is a broad conspiracy to produce fraudulent research, on the basis that this is somehow connected to funding in all cases, you're going to need extraordinary evidence.

If, on the other hand, your claim is that releasing CO into the atmosphere is the cause of an observed increase in atmosphericCO, and that increasing the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gasses will increase the greenhouse effect, then the evidence doesn't need to be extraordinary.

And even those guys you mention, or at least a good part of them, decided to believe in the other equally distinct scientists that say that most of what we hear about climate changes is alarmist.

"Equally distinct" or "non-existent"?

With respect to the claim that most of the current warming is anthropogenic, there are no scientific organsiations (As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement, no scientific body of national or international standing rejected the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.), and only 0.2% of scholarly papers (Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart), that refute the consensus.

That some scientists are saying wrong stuff is clear as there is no unanimity in the matter.

Most people would say 100% of scientific organisations, and 99.8% of scholarly papers is moderate unanimity.

It's not a peer-reviewed study, it's an informal systematic review.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart

Yeah, except that entire effort is a straw man of colossal proportions. "Climate deniers", really? What, do they deny the climate exists?

Many climate change skeptics accept the idea of greenhouse gasses and potential warming. What is contested is the severity of future warming, if any, and the certainty expressed by the IPCC when instead much is uncertain.

As to the "pause" being a statistical artifact, warming has in fact flattened for about fifteen years so far - despite CO2 being at record levels. We'll see how long it continues, we're right at solar maximum currently and looking at a long stretch of low solar activity ahead. So, the next 20-40 years should give us a true concrete idea of how a solar Grand Minimum effects the climate.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/08/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-only-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warming

It's not a peer-reviewed study, it's an informal systematic review.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart

Jane Q. Public writes "Christ Turney, a climate researcher at University of New South Wales, and some other researchers chartered a ship to go to Antarctica to further their Anthropogenic Global Warming ("climate change") research. The expedition, consisting of 74 researchers and crew, radioed for help on Christmas day, stating that they are trapped in the ice. A chinese ice breaker called "Snow Dragon" came within a few miles of the stuck ship but had to turn back. The researchers and crew are now hoping that the ice breaker Aurora Australis, out of Australia, will be able to reach them." [Jane Q. Public, 2013-12-28]

As Tom Curtis noted:

"There is an irony about the various sailors, scientist, reporters and tourists currently being trapped in sea ice. They are not trapped because of the growth of Antarctic Sea Ice. Although the current Antarctic SI is 1.5 million square kilometers greater than 1979-2008 mean for this time of year, it is nonetheless melting rapidly, including just north of Commonwealth Bay where the Shokalskey is trapped. Rather, it is trapped as a consequence of portions of ice shelves breaking of the Antarctic coast line. Specifically, in 2010, Iceberg B-9B, a remnant of a calving event on the Ross Ice Shelf in 1987, collided with the tongue of the Metz Glacier, breaking it of. The debris from that collision, it appears, has remained more or less in situe for the last three years, until b winds shifted out from the terminus of the Metz Glacier towards Commonwealth Bay, trapping the Shokalskey. This is described in more detail on the mission blog."

Tom also noted that the mission's 2nd goal was to "explore changes in ocean circulation caused by the growth of extensive fast ice and its impact on life in Commonwealth Bay."

For some strange reason, the CFACT link Jane provided tells a different story.

Jane Q. Public writes "Christ Turney, a climate researcher at University of New South Wales, and some other researchers chartered a ship to go to Antarctica to further their Anthropogenic Global Warming ("climate change") research. The expedition, consisting of 74 researchers and crew, radioed for help on Christmas day, stating that they are trapped in the ice. A chinese ice breaker called "Snow Dragon" came within a few miles of the stuck ship but had to turn back. The researchers and crew are now hoping that the ice breaker Aurora Australis, out of Australia, will be able to reach them." [Jane Q. Public, 2013-12-28]

As Tom Curtis noted:

"There is an irony about the various sailors, scientist, reporters and tourists currently being trapped in sea ice. They are not trapped because of the growth of Antarctic Sea Ice. Although the current Antarctic SI is 1.5 million square kilometers greater than 1979-2008 mean for this time of year, it is nonetheless melting rapidly, including just north of Commonwealth Bay where the Shokalskey is trapped. Rather, it is trapped as a consequence of portions of ice shelves breaking of the Antarctic coast line. Specifically, in 2010, Iceberg B-9B, a remnant of a calving event on the Ross Ice Shelf in 1987, collided with the tongue of the Metz Glacier, breaking it of. The debris from that collision, it appears, has remained more or less in situe for the last three years, until b winds shifted out from the terminus of the Metz Glacier towards Commonwealth Bay, trapping the Shokalskey. This is described in more detail on the mission blog."

Tom also noted that the mission's 2nd goal was to "explore changes in ocean circulation caused by the growth of extensive fast ice and its impact on life in Commonwealth Bay."

For some strange reason, the CFACT link Jane provided tells a different story.

One must recall the Rupert Murdoch owns the WSJ, and has, oh maybe some teensy bit of say in it's content policy. You simply can't trust the WSJ after this acquisition . . . imho :)

Rupert consistently muddies the water with confusing statements.
See Rupert Murdoch’s Newspapers Mislead Public On Climate Change and Environment .

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/17/ridleys-riposte-to-john-abraham/

Guest essay by Dr. Matt Ridley

On a blog called Desmog Blog, John Abraham has criticized my recent article in the Wall Street Journal on climate sensitivity. Here’s my piece http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324549004579067532485712464.html
And here’s his piece: http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/09/16/john-abraham-slams-matt-ridley-climate-denial-op-ed-wall-street-journal.

It’s a poor response, characterized by inaccurate representation of what I said, even down to actual misquoting. In the whole article, he puts just four words in quotation marks as written by me, yet in doing so he misses out a whole word: 20% of the quotation. Remarkable. If I did that, I would be very embarrassed.

He directly contradicts the IPCC’s report on extreme weather, which found no link between current storms and man-made climate change; he is apparently unaware that the rising costs of extreme weather are entirely caused by rising investment and insurance values, not rising quantities of extreme weather, as even a small amount of research would have told him ( http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/follow-up-q-from-senate-epw.html ); he falsely claims that I say rising sea levels will be beneficial, when I wrote no such thing; and he wholly ignores the benefits of mild climate change, even though I was careful to say that the key thing is to compare costs and benefits. It is possible that he does not know the meaning of the word “net”: he certainly shows no understanding of the concept.

“General statements about extremes are almost nowhere to be found in the literature but seem to abound in the popular media,” said climate scientist Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies recently. “It’s this popular perception that global warming means all extremes have to increase all the time, even though if anyone thinks about that for 10seconds they realize that’s nonsense.”

Mr Abraham’s main point is that up to 2 degrees C of warming is likely to do net harm. For this surprising claim, he produces noevidence. None. The evidence suggest the opposite – that less than two degrees of warming will cut excess winter deaths, increase average rainfall, extendgrowing seasons and increase rates of photosynthesis in wild and agricultural ecosystems. “A global warming of less than 2.5C could have no significant effect on overall food production,” says the UNFCC website.

http://unfccc.int/essential_background/background_publications_htmlpdf/climate_change_information_kit/items/288.php

See links here http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165188913000092%00 and here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/06/winter-kills-excess-deaths-in-the-winter-months/.

And yet it is he who accuses me of “non-science nonsense”. It’s truly disgraceful that a tenured academic, as I assume Mr Abraham to be, should make so many mistakes and yet feel free to hurl unsubstantiated abuse at another human being, however desperate he may be. In writing about climate change I am careful not to make unprovoked ad-hominem attacks – until attacked in this way.

I always play the ball, not the man. Mr Abra

The irony is that there is no convincing evidence that the global climate is actually warming.- Fred Singer

"The atmospheric temperature record between 1978 and 2000 (both from satellites and, independently, from radiosondes) doesn't show a warming. Neither does the ocean." - Fred Singer

Yeah Fred Singer isn't a skeptic he's a denier and one of the worst ones at that.

The attempt to portray him as some sort of reasonable doubter is a PR move, initiated by himself, and nothing more.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/singer-criticises-deniers.html

He's been so dramatically wrong on so many issues where the evidence was incontrovertible and always in the favor of the industry that was paying him, it's hard to conclude that he's a just liar for hire. He's been called out for stating falsehoods so frequently, displayed so little remorse or contrition when caught and about things of such great consequence - the life and death of millions of people- that it's hard not to conclude that he's a textbook sociopath.

http://www.desmogblog.com/s-fred-singer

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer

The list of scientific facts that Fred Singer has denied over the years doesn't paint a pretty picture. He's denied CFCs were responsible for the hole in the ozone, something he termed the "ozone scare".

He's denied that second hand smoke causes the spectrum of diseases second hand smoke does indeed cause.

He's denied that acid rain was a problem or what caused by industry emissions.

He's denied human caused climate change.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2008/01/20/202297/unstoppable-disinformation-every-15-minutes-from-fred-singer/

http://climateinsight.wordpress.com/editorial/merchant-of-doubt-s-fred-singer/

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer

and so on ad naseum...

Contrary to the "there is no debate; the scientific community 100% agrees on this issue and the only ones who disagree are funded by oil companies" line the pro-global-warming crowd says, I see much evidence that not all scientists agree, and not all the ones that disagree have hideous ulterior motives.

PROTIP: when you want to put your name on the line for proof or evidence against what a large portion of your scientific community is saying, you don't want to use the headline:

Editorial: The Great Global Warming Hoax?

That leads me to believe this is just an editorial and if it is found out to be incorrect they can wash their hands of it legally and scientifically. It's also unclear who that author is ...

It's misleading to those without good reading comprehension.

On July 8, the satellites found evidence that about 40% of the ice sheet's surface had melted. Observations just four days later showed 97% of the surface had melted.

See how it mentions "the ice sheet's surface". One consequence of that melting is that the ice surface becomes more granular which lowers the albedo encouraging more melting. http://www.desmogblog.com/black-day-july-greenland-ice-sheet

When rich people give away excess money to charities, that does not absolve them of guilt for the actions that made them wealthy in the first place. Just because Bill Gates gives away a bunch of money, that doesn't excuse he got that money using illegal monopoly tactics. You can't get credit for giving away money that you stole from taxpayers in the first place.

In recent years in particular, Buffett's wealth has been acquired using insider information from his cronies in the White House, actions that would have resulted in jail time for a less connected investor. Here's the way the circle works:

• Buffett and Goldman Sachs contribute buckets of money to the democratic party and the Obama campaign.
• When Goldman was in risk of going under, Buffett invests $5B in them to keep them going. It was a no risk bet because Buffett's buddies let him know before the general public that GS was getting a bailout. Notes on that at Trade With The Ultimate Insider.
• Buffett publicly thanks the US government for bringing stability to the markets, by which he really means money in his company's pockets.
• All the borrowed money plus $1.6B divident profit flows back to Buffett within 3 years.

There's endless stories on this theme, including major trades around the US auto industry bailout too. I believe the most recent is the Keystone XL mess. Peter Schweizer's "Throw Them All Out" book has a whole section devoted to Warren Buffett's tricks where he abuses his political ties for profit. Here's a video segment from Schweizer summarizing that. Buffett's money is just as dirty as if he'd robbed you with a gun; don't like the kindly old man disguise fool you.

Why don't you type that up in an article and see if you can get it published in a peer-reviewed journal?

Before you do that, I suggest you save yourself some time and try googling your little theory. You may find this link and this link interesting.

Here's a quote:

[...] One common refrain from skeptics is that the atmosphere is already saturated with CO2 – in other words, that the greenhouse effect has already reached “its peak performance,” as Nova puts it – so adding more of it, even doubling its atmospheric concentration, shouldn’t make a difference. The problem with this logic is that it ignores the complex, multi-layered structure of the atmosphere by essentially treating it as one unit.

I'm continually amazed how people who clearly aren't experts in climate modeling think they can debunk theories from people who have worked in the field for decades without even researching whether their debunk makes any sense.

I sense you're a Republican. Probably a Santorum supporter.

Then get a clue about how medical science works, it presents stuff as fact that is really just the average. Did you know that for someone people their heart isn't on the left side? Not everybody has the same amount of vertebrae? People have different sensitivities in their senses?

And somehow, we manage, because every one of the things you mention involves severe edge cases, and even the severe edge cases can't go too far (the heart is much more centrally located than most people believe anyways, most idiots told to put their hand over their "heart" will put their palm over their left nipple FFS) before this thing called "death" tends to come into play due to other, far nastier congenital problems enter the picture. When you're talking about someone with eyesight of a slightly widened spectrum, or hearing that goes a tad above the standard (and most young kids can hear higher frequencies anyways, simply because of the lack of wear and tear), you're talking about variances in fractions of a percentage point outside the standard, measured zone that is normal for humanity.

There are people with severe longsightedness The GPP above who was bitching about how he can tell on his 37" TV the difference between 720p and 1080p content from 20 feet away MIGHT be one of these people, since he "used to wear glasses", or he might just be self-deluding, or he might just be viewing content on a crap TV with a crap scaler that renders anything other than native resolution with some pissy artifacting. The percentages lead towards #2 or #3 far more than #1, we would call #1 "Vegas Odds" at best.

Citation needed. If people believed as you did, there would never be any innovation...

Also, you raise a false dillemma. Vast amounts of financial capital in our society have tied themselves up into energy sources they can more easily control. It's a mindset that won't invest much in alternatives, and will invest in politics to keep their control in place (like preventing laws regulating coal pollution).

Actually, I live in a fairly energy efficient house (partially passive solar), so I am practicing that I preach to some extent (not perfectly). The state of the art in home construction these days in cold climates is to have lots of efficiency and no furnace:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/world/europe/27house.html?_r=1
"DARMSTADT, Germany â" From the outside, there is nothing unusual about the stylish new gray and orange row houses in the Kranichstein District, with wreaths on the doors and Christmas lights twinkling through a freezing drizzle. But these houses are part of a revolution in building design: There are no drafts, no cold tile floors, no snuggling under blankets until the furnace kicks in. There is, in fact, no furnace."

I also eat pretty low on the food chain, that saves lots of energy and water and medical costs and pollution and animal suffering and so on.
http://www.westernwatersheds.org/watmess/watmess_2002/2002html_summer/article6.htm

I provided lots of links to people putting time and money into alternatives, and they just continue to improve. The fact that GE is predicting solar will be cheaper that coal in five years despite how coal is subsidized so much (including by not having to pay for the health costs or environment destruction costs) just shows how good renewables are.
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/05/29/ge-solar-power-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-in-5-years/

Coal did not pay its true cost in 1993:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1993/12/the-true-cost-of-coal/4566/

Coal does not pay its true cost now (perhaps half a trillion dollars a year):
http://www.skepticalscience.com/true-cost-of-coal-power.html
http://www.desmogblog.com/true-cost-coal-half-trillion-dollars-year

And that is what makes it so hard "economically" to sell alternatives.

So, it is indeed hard to compete against such a tilted playing field, true. That is a missing issue in your comment about "so you do it", unpaid externalities.

In fact, if you reread my comment, you will see I said "No one said it was going to be easy"... That is why it is now a socio-economic issue more than a technical issue. We have plenty of technology if we wanted to use it. And it would overall be cheaper to use it overall across our society, and then alternatives would be adopted faster when gasoline was $20 a gallon with externalities priced in (we'd all drive electric cars pretty fast) or when coal electricity was $0.50 a kilowatt-hour (we'd all switch to wind and other renewables plus energy efficiency real fast). But that does not happen because we don't pay up front. Instead we pay on our health insurance bills, or in national debt to fund a war machine, or future environmental destruction that needs to be fixed, and so on...

Every think tank ofcourse helps it's sponsors

No. A think tank is an institute that performs research and provides advice on public policy - not a PR mouthpiece for its donors. The Heartland Institute has shown itself to be the latter: http://www.desmogblog.com/fake-science-fakexperts-funny-finances-free-tax

It's circumstantial evidence. You obviously find it less compelling than I do. It's not proof of a fake, but it's certainly evidence of one.

Incidentally, as for Koch being "[t]he Heartland Institute's biggest donor", go check out their response over here, where they claim (and Greenpeace's records confirm) that they gave $25k to Heartland in 2011 for health care research, not global warming, and that this was the first donation they had made since 1999. They do have one very large anonymous donor, and if you have some evidence identifying who that is I'd for one find it interesting.

If you really care about fixing global warming rather than Team Red/Team Blue, you're going to need to engage people on both sides of the political spectrum. Turning everything into a massive conspiracy theory is not going to help you do this.

The DeSmogBlog has reviewed that Strategy document and compared its content to other material we have in hand. It addresses five elements:

The Increased Climate Project Fundraising material is reproduced in and confirmed by Heartland's own budget.

The "Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Classrooms" is also a Heartland budget item and has been confirmed independently by the author, Dr. David Wojick.

The Funding for Parallel Organizations; Funding for Selected Individuals Outside Heartland are both reproduced and confirmed in the Heartland budget. And Anthony Watts has confirmed independently the payments in Expanded Climate Communications.

http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/(1-15-2012)%202012%20Fundraising%20Plan.pdf