The Threat of Global Warming

by Sarah. G Wed Apr 15, 2009 00:02

A thing we all need is food. Our food is constantly circulated throughout the island by transportation. Weather it comes from another country or from our own, we depend on gas in the airplanes and trucks to transport them. End the dependence, do your part, grow your own. It not a choir, its a priveledge. Organic and fresh food and maybe getting back in touch with nature?

Below is a link to a great initiative

by satan Wed Apr 15, 2009 10:19

The planet will recover from humans as infant recovers from a rash. Down the aeons we wont be anything atall, not even a scar.that is the absolute best we can hope for if we are not intent on fooling ourselves to death as well.

by Christo_Rey - n/a Wed Apr 15, 2009 12:23

Great news story here.By the way,it's no longer "Global warming".The term in use is now "Climate change" as it's now a scientifically verified fact tnat the Earth has been in a cooling trend since '98 and many places around the world have experienced the coldest and most precipitice winter for decades.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/over-650-scientists-challen....html

by Christo_Rey - n/a Wed Apr 15, 2009 12:32

"...Top UN scientists have been forced to admit that natural weather occurrences are having a far greater effect on climate change than CO2 emissions as a continued cooling trend means there has been no global warming since 1998. .."

http://www.infowars.com/no-global-warming-since-1998-as...-off/

by Richard Whelan Wed Apr 15, 2009 14:01

For many years, it has been proven that most scientists involved in denying global warming are working for vested interests, namely oil companies. The evidence proves that the world is warming- it is a fact that the 10 warmest years on record have all occoured in the past 12 years, with average mean global temperatures in the past decade (1998-2007) 0.4 degrees C above the average 1961-1990 levels. Glaciers in the Alps, Andes, and Himilayas to name but a few are retreating at substantial rates, threatening global water supplies.

Climate change is real. Let's stop with the little conspiracy theories and the support of vested interests and start doing something about it.

by Christo_Rey - n/a Wed Apr 15, 2009 16:00

I'd like to see the proof that the 650 scientists who recently came together to criticise the THEORY of MAN MADE global warming are working for oil companies.Many of these guys in fact are named on the IPCC document,the only document ever cited to support the notion that evil mankind is the culprit.

The argument that everyone critical of the theory of man made global warming is working for Shell is hackneyed , a lie and doesn't stand up to even the most cursory investigation. It's also a fact that many of the names on the IPPCC document are not even climate scientists but have a political agenda.Many names on the IPCC document were included without the permissions of the individuals in questions.Its also an historical fact that Maggie Thatcher established the IPCC in order to undermine and eventually destroy the miners and British coal mining as force for political change and influence.

We all await the list you no doubt are now going to supply of the 650 scientific dissenters and the various oil companies they work for.

C

by Bazooka Joe Wed Apr 15, 2009 16:55

The Great Global Warming Scam, as in, it is caused by humans, is rubbish. It does however suit the political objectives of certain elites to limit the economic development of the underdeveloped countries and levy more taxes on the rest of us.

Watch this one guy. He is just one of thousands of scientists who refute this entire scam.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLEJ4ZT8kqo

Caption: Video Id: eLEJ4ZT8kqo Type: Youtube Video
Embedded video Youtube Video

by Christo_Rey - n/a Wed Apr 15, 2009 17:26

Great video. As the old saying goes "the truth can stand a debate". The fact Gore and his carbon credit Nazis refuse a debate and engage in wide scale media suppression of evidence refuting their Apocolyptic claims says it all. These guys are engaged in philosophical and scientific fascism.

Those greenies out there who lament the very existence of mankind and begrudge every technological innovation are no better than religious fanatics and Gaia is their God and any critisim of St Gore or the Holy script of the IPCC is tantamount to heresy.

For those of us who are not quite overcome by the elitist/media generated trance state most of mankind finds himself in,this whole issue is just incredible.It's like watching mankind enagage in mass stockholm syndrome.Of,course this and many other elitist agendas rely on the institutionalised state of fear most people find themselves in..This whole Global warming episode really has cemented my conviction that people are in fact sheeple and when the NWO is draging everyone off to Civilian internemet camps,the same folk who insist on believing the unproven theory of man made global warming will be the same folk who will tell their neighbour that government is good for you and the camp will be like one long holiday. I'm reminded of an account I read recently of a Rabbi who beleived that Hitler ,on coming to power, was the messiah.How wrong he was.

As Bazooka says,this whole issue is one colosal excuse to introduce carbone credit trading and yet more punitive taxes to push us down into the servile mud.Lets' not forget that this whole issue of Credits in no way pretends to address the ssue of co2 emission levels.It simply proposes to tax them.Co2 is a life gas.We are all carbon based beings and plant life loves Co2,thrives on it.That most people now believe Co2 to be a poison is a massive indication of the trance state of joe public.Orwell predicted that these double-think mental gymnastics would come to fore.How right he was.

by Richard Whelan Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:31

It is impossible for me to track down all 650 scientists, and it was ill thought out that I assume they do work for vested interests.

I will say however that of the 928 publications referring to climate change in highly respected American scientific journals published between 1993 and 2003, not one went against the consensus that climate change is real.

For someone that said that the IPCC was set up by Margaret Thatcher. you obviously are ignorant of basic facts in relation to this body. As an intergovernmental UN organisation, it couldn't have been set up by any one leader- it was in fact set up by the World Meteorological Organisation and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

And while people are entitled to their opinions regarding this, the assertion that this is just an elitist ploy to fool everyone think about this- how about the fact that the elite (ie the Western World) controls the polluting industries and lobbys governments to the tune of millions of dollars to ignore warnings on climate change?

Anyone who knows anything about science can see that it is irrefutable that a level of carbon in the air SURPLUS to the requirements of natural life (plants etc) leads to the greenhouse effect. I'm not going to explain that as anyone who doesn't know it shouldn't really be talking about climate change and whether it's real or not.

by climate activist Thu Apr 16, 2009 15:37

If anyone actually saw the ''scientists'' and delegates who attended the 'anti' climate change conference a few weeks back will see that they are all right-wing, neo-liberal fools.

Whoever thinks climate change isn't real is, without any shadow of a doubt, absolutely misinformed and totally ignorant. All the conspiracy theorists I know can never back up anything they ever say except 'the sun is heating'.

Also, the classic argument for religion is 'you cant disprove it', this is a commonly used argument for climate change sceptics. Ignore them.

Furthermore, the climate change sceptics who challenge scientists research question the scientists bankroll and beliefs ettc. But they NEVER question their own sources. Bias and ignorant, not good traits!

by CorporateGreedSucks Thu Apr 16, 2009 17:22

Richard, It is clear you have an agenda. Vote yes to lisbon and globalisation and unanswerable corrupt people giving the green light to corporate destruction of the environment in the name of profit. After all, all the pollution they create has no effect on climate does it? So no need to regulate or tax them any more for spewing out greenhouse gases or any other toxic filth. This is just short term crazy sociopathic profit seeking behaviour. Corporations need to have more severe limits put on them not less.

No to lisbon and yes to regulation on corporate pollution.

And why NOT have carbon trading? But rather than giving these allowances to corporations and states, give them to each individual person on the planet to do with as they see fit. We all breathe the air after all don't we? It belongs to us all. Then the poor third world people could trade theirs for food, keep them if they don't want any more CO2 emissions, or use them to bargain for better work conditions, or stronger pollution controls etc... Socialism through carbon controls!! great idea I think

by dunk - BCN en Transicion, climate camper, dublin community gardener Thu Apr 16, 2009 21:43 fuspey at yahoo dot co dot uk

State of our little rock, Patchamama: The BAD
On the BAD side much of the world diverse ecosystems have been seriously destroyed due to human activity over last 200 years or so, since the industrial revolution erupted. In recent times (post world war 2), despite warnings and protests from scientists and activists in the ecological worlds, big business has grown and dominated the agenda on how the world is run, exploited, abused, destroyed. This was coupled with dumbing down of much of us in "the modern world", It really did look like we (the human species) were slowly killing ourselvs and nobody seemed too bothered about it, that change was impossible. A frustrating, depressing, soul destroying, hopeless scenario.

State of our little rock, Patchamama: The Good
On the GOOD side, more recently something profound has erupted, a reaction to the previous hopeless scenario: an awakening, a new sense of anger, hope, belief that change is necessary and achievable. From small groups, networks, struggles, N30 exploded on the scene marking the emergence of a new movement, the anti corporate globalisation movement (a mish mash of many things) "another world is possible" was the chant at social forums, from that its moved to "not only possible but neccasery". There have been new battles of ideas, strategies, goals, processes, etc. It seems more people (from many parts of the world, and all sides of life) have again started to awaken to the reality of the state of the world and her peoples and are feeling compelled to not wait around for the politicians to sort the problems and take it upon themselves to make the better world they dream about in their here and now. This works on many levels, from the very small to the very large, from the simple to the complex, from an action to a deep inner spiritual shift...

"Think Global, act local. Think local, Act Global"
This was a catchphrase of the times recently, now its moved from that to "Think Global, act local. Think local, Act Global". In that it means that we are seeing some real things, projects, movements, actions taking off that if they continue to build as they have done so in recent years have the potential to change things profoundly. These have offered huge stores of HOPE and they spring from those deep internal parts of our souls which are so important, and for so long neglected: VISION. Those that come to mind firstly are what i see as being as similar to the home and away games for a football team (or global eco tribe) TRANSITION TOWN (INITIAVES) and CLIMATE CAMP movements. At last years climate camp it seemed that many people were invovled in both.

The transition movement is a very practical bottom up initiave to "unlock the creative genius of community" in coming up with creative solutions to working out how we can live a hi quality of life with far less oil dependance, now that we are in peak oil time. This movement in only 3 years has gone viral, and if your not already involved check out your local area to see if there is a group "mulling over", if not, start one up...

The other movement, again in only 3 years, seems to have also gone viral: the coming together of people out of a deep concern for the urgent need for radical change, the need to go beyond talk to action, that being demonstrating alternatives that are more sustainable, create spaces for education, training, movement building etc, followed by DIRECT ACTION to take on a leading climate criminal, a project that if allowed to continue will lead to massive carbon emmissions. 2 years ago in heathrow, it erupted, its now spread to US, australia, germany and other places. In the US 2 months back was a massive act of civil disobediance to shut down coal plant in washington. It is still early days in this and Ireland is currently organising its climate camp this summer. The last 2 camps in UK were both successful in terms of temporary halts to "business as usual" but more so to widen the discussion about what the normal man on the street can do, its also clear that they are something special (hard still to put into words). Its early days, its easy to knock new stuff (especially in ireland) but participating in things like this open up part inside which connect and widen those critical never ending parts of us that we need to continually need to explore, test, expand: HOPE and VISION.

“The immune system of humanity finally kicking in”
So, from seemingly hopeless times to something new, something erupting from both deep within ourselves, something new, something never before seen on earth, something that might right the wrongs. US ecologist Paul Hawken has documented this eruption and he called it nicely Blessed Unrest, and described it as "how the largest movement in the world came into being and how no-one saw it coming", he likened this phenoman to “the immune system of humanity finally kicking in” (see 2 vids below). As someone who has hunted around for a while, doing projects, fighting (non-violently) for change, learning and working in areas for eco change, i really feel these views are very worthwhile learning about (so far, despite quite a few posts about them on IMC-IE, there has been little response???) From that Hawken and co have created an amazing resource, a global WIKI directory of social movements and related goodies: WISER Earth: http://www.wiserearth.org
Check it out and see whats going on near you, get connected, get involved...

Global Crisis and the Re-Session
So untill very recently that was how things stood; But now the story has taken yet another twist. About last november talk of economic downturn, bank bailouts etc started to be heard. That has quickly moved to "the worst economic situation since world war 2". Ireland´s celtic tiger has fled, the global economy is in tatters, thieves (bankers) have been payed off and for many people things are in the shit, jobs gone, extra taxs, welfare cuts etc. A lot of people are angry, they are right to be. Its not easy, recent budget has only made it more difficult.

Everyone has been hit by things, BUT, there is a reason to view these things in a positive light. The chinese phrase for CRISIS is comprised of DANGER, but also OPPORTUNITY. Firsly, as outlined above, the way we have been living in the modern world was/ is utterly unsustainable and a radical re-think, re-design and re-model is called for. The recent seemingly ever growing markets which erupted globally post WW2 was based on the abundance of cheap oil, nearly everything we use today is powered or fuelled by this: the apple you eat today in ireland has probably been grown with fertilizers, then shipped half way around the planet via aeroplane (built by oil burning) powered by aviation fuel, if it was nicely wrapped in plastic bag theres more....

But it is peak oil time, in fact some say its peak everything time. So that means the old "business as usual" days are over, capitalism exploited and thrived during the "oil age", but its over!. This financial crisis is the first big crack in that flawed system. How things change is the interesting part. The hope is that that Blessed Unrest continues to grow, the network continues to connect and enlarge, the peoples of the world begin to think critically, talk collectivaly and take smart eco intelligent appropriate moves to a more sustainable, peaceful, and just existence. Sceptics might scoff (its easy to be cycnical, harder to be positive, harded again to move from dream to action to realisation of that dream!) but in fact it is the only thing which makes sense, AND, personally it actually makes this short experience, LIFE (antes la muerta, la vida!) all that more enjoyable.

While home recently (i left Ireland nearly 3 years ago and presently live and work in Barcelona) for a wedding and Paddys day, I was struck by how much Ireland has changed in such a short time. Here in BCN i tune into the radio and am in contact with people at home, from afar the DOOM AND GLOOM OF RECESSION is all you hear, but at home the one thing that i heard time and time again was "the best thing to happen Ireland is that this recession has come, peopel have woken up again". Everywhere i went it seemed new community gardens are being started up, my own families farm in west clare is open again as a food production zone, which had not been the case as long as the celtic tiger was busy doing its thing. On Paddys day, we did that which was done for so long before- planted spuds. And we did it so joyfully, yeah it was work, yeah it was digging, shovelling shite (FYM- farm yard manure) etc, but we enjoyed it and my cousins and uncle feel it is something important. Theres also the massive health aspects to such activities; physical work as opposed to sitting at computers or behind tractor wheel, the deep connection humans get from sticking their hands into the earths soil, the possibility of selling off excess produce in local transition town ennistymon organic food market, the idea of local currency helping local inititiaves, the idea of future kids learning and participating in the produciton of that food which sustains them, the wellbeing from road walkers on seeing the diversity of flowers and plants from a beautiful food zone, diversity in the soils, new seeds entering lahinch, new apple trees.... Its a near unending list

Later, after the spud planting, we went into the paddys day parade in ennistymon, which the transition team on their bikes finished off, some of which were last seen at ecotopia in 2002 out in East Clare, in Dells woods @ Scarriff. For a change, and for the first time in many many years, it was not lashing, dirty and wet, it was perfect, warm, sun shone, it seemed perfect. The old man sitting in the sun on the cill of Dalys was equally thrilled by the re-emergence of local food production. Then inside in Cullinans talk of the farmers and locals turned to Food- "Food is what its all about", said Doctor Kelleher, who was responsible for giving us the leaguers (spuds named after the land league struggle which moved south from mayo to clare to assist in change in darker days in west clares story). After that talk moved to the "crisis" and the resession, untill Pat Clare came out with the classic twist the "Re-Session", so simple, yet, so so spot on. I was surprised I hadnt heard it before or thought of it. In times not so long ago in Clare and the whole island, when people did more with less (part of a goal to return to for the transition movement) the session was that time when people came together to collectively enjoy themselves, be in set dancing in a neighbours house, a few sups in town on market day, seanachaí storytelling, a music and sing song session.... again a list which could go on. Indeed theres tales that many a session went on for quite some time...

The point is that in recent Celtic Tiger times, even though we supposedly had more economically speaking, many feel we lost much; our songs, our ability to dance, our knowledge of food planting, our enjoyment at a metheal; collective work, where various families would come together, work together, share tea out of lemonade bottles in the fields together, bring in the hay together, eat together, chat together.... our spirituality, our ability to truly enjoy ourselves. In some cases the (celtic tiger times) modern world was simply divided between sleep, work, drink. in many cases there was excess, in much cases there were communication problems, depression, suicide (the cliffs of moher recently was said to have 1 person a week throwing themselves over the edge...)

A democratic world? Latin Americas revolution spreading along the gulf to Cork, boy!
But maybe, now that we are in this "crisis", people might again have to become more resilient, creative. maybe they will be forced to learn again to do more with less. and maybe, that world might actually be more enjoyable than the pre-crisis world. This might sound utopian, it is. its a dream, but it is feasible. To get there will demand a massive shift in how we organise ourselves. People will have to organise themselves on critical lines, talk about, work out and live accordingly to what are realistic limits based on real levels of economy, energy, wisdom, education, ability. This will automatically (idealistically speaking) call for a complete makeover of the political model that now presently exists in the modern world, especially in ireland and its family hand me down gombeenism that is slowly changing from the civil war lines. If we are to have DEMOCRACY, in the true sense, it might look a lot like how the process works in Bolivia today (As far as I know, there was an assisination attempt on the indigineous president Evo Morales today, and a few days ago he was the first head of state to go on hunger strike in solidarity with his people, i dont know much else yet about that), probably the nearest thing to the true model according to recent 2 part interview with noam chomsky on democracy now this week.

In the US a massive change has happened. Its not perfect, but it is a large change, and COULD be that which leads to even greater change. BUSH is out, OBAMA is in. Bush was all that was wrong, ecologically speaking, with how to develop the world. Obama is in with a celebratory super star, god like, marketing campaign and with great talk of HOPE and CHANGE. He alone cant change it all, solve the worlds problems, but, he is in the best position to start that process. Its easy to say hes now governer in charge of largest terrorist organisation in the world, he is. But, he has stirred up people with an idea. and if that nasty system, US imperialism, is to be flattened, one factor will be the US people fighting from within for something better. They have been mobilised to the first step, but now comes the slog. And already there have been big changes in terms of energy policy, green jobs etc. One of the things which i think rocks, is that michelle obama has turned the sacred lawn of the white house into an organic food garden, herself, her kids and a rake load of kids from schools in washington have been getting their hands dirty in the soil. Not only that, but the idea to go organic has pissed off the agri-petro multinational companies because she is not sticking GM food into the ground, and not supporting their oil depandant, possibly cancerous products... nice one Missus O´Bama. From that shes talking about a million community gardens for the US, again nice one Missus O´Bama.

Bringing it all back home.
Anyway, to bring it all back to this article; If we dont change our way of living, our way of living might change us. worst case scenario is: human species dies off. The world doesent need us, but we need the world and her sacred biodiversity of ecosystems. Our current ways are heating up the planet, and if continue, one sure thiing for ireland is that global warming will, ironacally enough, make us a lot colder. melting ice caps will push down the mexican stream, thereby freezing us, we will be like Canada... cold, cold, cold for a long time. But to counter this, maybe some of those ideas of how to live might come along the gulf stream and up along kinsale and up to the "rebel" town of cork, maybe it might proclaim itself and take action to become a true "peoples republic" (there is a precedent, if somewhat short, from Limerick in 1919 and Derry in `68) - Why not? Mayfield already has its Muralismo, from initial steps made in that latin direction.

Sin É (thats it in Gaelic)
Anyway, thats it. Sorry if this has strayed a bit around the place. The point is, yes, the world is being fucked at present. Yes, its humans that are the fault. Yes, we might not survive (remember earth itself if but a blip in the longer story of kalpa, and our sun, like all the stars, will have their day and burn out...) BUT in the, relatively, short term, we SHOULD try to turn about our ways of living. As Bucky Fuller often said "we need to learn how to steer our little spaceship (planet earth) again". And if we actually enjoy that process, great. Never have the stakes been so high. But never, even more so with the Re-Session, have we been in such a time with massive potential for change.

That beautiful sustainable happy just peaceful dream held in (y)our hearts is worth the struggle to try to make it the reality for (y)our kids kids kids kids...

Viva la Vida

Dunk, 1 of eco intelligent growth
http://www.ecointelligentgrowth.net/eng/02duncan.html
blog- http://itsafunnyoldworld.wordpress.com

RELATED INFOS:

The Big Picture from Democracy Now!

--- > Studies: Global Warming Marks Greatest Climate Shift in 5,000 Years

In environmental news, a new round of studies shows the recent rise in global temperatures marks the most dramatic climate change since the onset of human civilization 5,000 years ago. Researchers at Cornell University studied fresh water levels from glacial melting, oceanic circulation and range migration in the Arctic and North Atlantic. The study found what it calls a “major ecosystem reorganization” or “regime shift” unprecedented in human history.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/10/headlines#19

--- > Antarctic Ice Bridge Collapses

In science news, an ice bridge which had held a vast Antarctic ice shelf in place for hundreds of years has shattered. Scientists said it may herald a wider collapse linked to global warming. Temperatures on the Antarctic Peninsula have risen by up to about 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit in the past fifty years, the fastest rate of warming in the Southern Hemisphere.
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/4/7/headlines#14

--- > Noam Chomsky on the Global Economic Crisis, Health Care, U.S. Foreign Policy and Resistance to American Empire

Latin America, for the first time in 500 years, is moving towards a degree of independence and a kind of integration, which is a prerequisite for independence

Bolivia is, in my opinion at least, probably the most democratic country in the world. Nobody says that, but if you look at what happened in the last couple of years, there were huge, popular, mass organizations of the most repressed population in the hemisphere, the indigenous population, which for the first time ever has entered the political arena significantly and were able to elect a president from their own ranks and one who doesn’t give instructions to his army, but who’s following policies that were largely produced by the population. So he’s their representative, in a sense in which democracy is supposed to work.

And they know the issues. It’s not like our elections. They know the issues. They’re serious issues: control over resources, economic justice, cultural rights, and so on. You can say they’re right or wrong, but at least it’s functioning.

... there’s been tremendous progress. The country (US) is far more civilized than it was, say, forty years ago, thanks to the activism of the ’60s and its aftermath. And some of the most important developments were after the ’60s, like, say, the feminist movement, which has probably had more of an impact on this society than any other. It’s mostly post-’60s. The solidarity movements, which are unique in the history of imperialism, there’s never been anything like them. That’s from the ’80s. The global justice movements, what’s called anti-globalization—shouldn’t be—that’s, you know, the ’90s and this century. These were all very positive developments.
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/4/13/noam_chomsky_on_t...nomic

The Reacion(s) - The (re)Awakening... The Blessed Unrest

Global Eco Forum (S22-O17) - Times of profound ecological change
http://itsafunnyoldworld.wordpress.com/2008/09/23/globa...orum/
IMC-IE - http://www.indymedia.ie/article/89212#attachment1000042524

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzMPUKAXM7U
Paul Hawken speaks at Bioneers 2006 (10 mins)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npKaOddyrcY
Paul Hawken speaks at Google (1 hour)

The latest Latin American country embracing revolution: El Salvador leans left
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0407/elsalvador.html

The Transition Handbook
http://www.appropedia.org/The_Transition_Handbook_-_fre...rsion
Transition Culture: http://transitionculture.org/

It´s A Funny Old World

Caption: Video Id: NzMPUKAXM7U Type: Youtube Video
Embedded video Youtube Video

Caption: Video Id: npKaOddyrcY Type: Youtube Video
Embedded video Youtube Video

by dunk Thu May 07, 2009 11:46

http://spiritofireland.org/

Great Great stuff, I just heard your interview for Spirit of Ireland on the Pat Kenny radio show and am very excited about how Ireland might go from 98% energy importer (along with massive associated CO2 emissions) to becoming a possible 100% island wide Green Energy producer.

I am a passionate Irishman, who has been disappointed how Ireland squandered so much over recent “Tiger” years, but now there is a re-awakening on the “Green Isle”. As a dreamer, and do-er, I think this fantastic project is only the first step in generating the wider discussion about turning Ireland into a sustainable model for Europe and the World. That is my dream, and Im sure we can get there, to make a truly “Green Isle”, in the true sense of the word, as I think things were for a long time, as my understanding of the ideas behind Newgrange.

further comments and responses to earlier later...

dunk

Spirit of Ireland - Eco Energy change project, first step to make Ireland a truly "Green Isle"

by dunk Thu May 07, 2009 14:37

listen to interview on Pat Kenny show here:
http://www.rte.ie/radio1/player_av.html?0,null,200,http....smil

spirit of ireland on twitter
http://twitter.com/spiritofireland

by Dennis Wright Tue Jan 11, 2011 14:19 dennisthethatcher at hotmail dot co dot uk

This is the story of one man's effort over several years to create a plan for the improvement in our negative impact on the planet. It shows how the ordinary person with a viable idea is ignored and rejected by government representatives, only to see his ideas introduced later by those same representatives in their own name. It offers a means of coordinating all the different bodies conducting expensive research separately, often duplicating the effort without sharing.

It is all contained in my website. The 'News' category should be of special interest. Please take the trouble to read my lengthy website and contribute either through your comments or via the links contained within it. I hope that in time it will help to give everyone a voice on matters which may be threatening the survival of the human race and civilisation as we know it.

by Peadaar. Sat Jan 15, 2011 17:46

When you put a frog in cool water and then slowly heat the water the frog wil be dead before it realises that the water is too hot.

When you put humans on a cool planet and then slowly heat the planet the humans will be dead before they realise that the planet is too hot.

by ribbid Sun Jan 16, 2011 01:48

the frog doesn't heat his own water!!
humans are obviously even stupider than frogs

by A real Scientist Sun Jan 16, 2011 21:55

There is general scientific agreement that the globe has been warming, for the last three centuries or so. There is also agreement that this warming has not been a strictly constant upward increase but has occurred periodically and has also been interspersed with periods of cooling.

But by carefully choosing ones timeframe it is possible to graph this increase and make it appear to be a rapid rise over a short period of time.

The “Anthropomorphic Global Warming hypothesis” is that Global Warming is caused mainly by human activity, resulting almost exclusively from a rise in CO2 released into the atmosphere.

This AGW Hypothesis claims that if the concentration of greenhouse gases (in general and CO2 in particular) in the atmosphere rises , the temperature will inevitably follow. The hypothesis is that the GHGs are the master thermostat for the globe, everything else just averages out in the long run. the proponentsof this hypothesis clalim that nothing but GHGs could possibly cause the observed long-term warming

This hypothesis completely ignores any evidence advanced that CO2 rises actually follow temperature rise - the time-lag is reckoned to be in the order of 800yrs.

The AGW hypothesis provides almost nothing in the way of a statement or a prediction which can be falsified. Such a possibility for falsification of the hypothesis is a prerequisite in order for anyone to call this AGW hypothesis 'Scientific'.

This difficulty in falsification of the hypothesis, while perhaps attractive to the proponents of the hypothesis, inevitably implies a corresponding difficulty in verification or support of the hypothesis.

In addition, a number of arguably cogent and certainly feasible scientific objections have been raised against various parts of the hypothesis, from the nature and sign of the forcings considered and unconsidered, to the existence of natural thermostatic mechanisms.

Add to that the general failure of the few predictions which have come from the years of computerised-model churning in support of the AGW hypothesis.

We haven’t seen any reliabole evidence of acceleration in sea level rise.

We haven’t seen any climate refugees.

The number and power of hurricanes hasn’t increased as predicted. In fact the there is evidence that the opposite has occurred.

The IPCC warned us about coral atolls and Bangladesh - that both were going to get washed away by the oncoming Thermal Armageddon.

Surprisingly Bangladesh and the atoll islands are both getting bigger, not smaller. again evidence which makes a nonsense of IPCC/Global Warming predictions

We were promised a warming of two, maybe even three tenths of a degree per decade this century if we didn’t mend our evil carbon-loving ways, and so far we haven’t mended one thing, and we have seen … well … zero tenths of a degree for the first decade.

So to date, the evidential scorecard looks real bad for the AGW hypothesis.

After a quarter century of having unlimited funding and tonnes of computer horsepower and hundreds of thousands of hours of students’ and scientists’ time and the full-throated support of the media and university departments dedicated to establishing the hypothesis, AGW supporters have not yet come up with much observational evidence to show for the time and money invested.

When a very large percentage of the 'predictions' of the supporters of the AGW Hypothesis turn out to be false or un-verifiable, then continuing to advance the theory would appear to be extremely un-Scientific behaviour - indeed some might label such activity in favour of an obviously flawed hypothesis as "Anti-Scientific"

The only truly 'Scientific' course of action would be to abandon the AGW hypothesis and concentrate on examining other possible causes for the observed warming.

Anything else would just be a sign of ones commitment to
Anti-Scientific activity

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Mon Jan 17, 2011 12:13

..of action would be to abandon the AGW hypothesis and concentrate on examining other possible causes for the observed warming.

Anything else would just be a sign of ones committment to Anti-Scientific activity.'

That reads as rather a dogmatic statement for one advocating the scientific method.

Abandon an hypothesis because the evidence is disputed and at times ambiguous? Ignore the immense sums spent by the vested corporate interests in creatingt pseudo-scientific decoys and denials? Forget the cumulative evidence for species collapse and degradation of soils and waterways, including the oceans. The unprecedented La Nina event due to increased ocean and atmospheric heating hitting Oz, Phillipines, Sri Lanka and Rio should be brushed aside?The opening of the Arctic ocean creating another black-gold rush(BP just signed up for joint exploration with Moscow so that aint flat-earth news)and the retreat of glaciers globally are fictions of Hollywood's dramatic inclinations?

A Real Scientist?But science is as capable of prostituting its talents as any other profession. I believe Einstein received a similar reception from the 'real' scientists of his time. A real scientist, like yourself, should be better able than I am to list other cases of rose-tinted blinkerdom by any number of 'scientific' luminaries down the centuries.

My layman's understanding of the scientific method is that you gather all evidence, including that inimical to your presumptions, and suppress nothing, including uncomfortable theories that indicate we dont have the full picture.

But do correct me, from your true believer scientific standpoint.

by Peadaar Mon Jan 17, 2011 15:34

It is about Carbon Dioxide, you who call yourself "A True Scientist".

So far the temperature changes have been within natural variation.

Allowing Carbon Dioxide to build up in the atmosphere is tantamount to slow suicide.

254.1 milion years ago there was "The Great Dying"; when most life-forms on earth were wiped out.
Nobody knows why.
(Not to be confused with the event which wiped out the dinasaurs just 65 million years ago.)

Not even insects were spared.

To quote Wikipedia:
"It is the only known mass extenction of insects."

Google up "The Great Dying" and see what is in store for us if we don't stop the build up of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere.

We are frogs indeed.

by We the People Tue Jan 18, 2011 20:52

Here is a video clip of Lord Monckton ,who happens to know what he's taking about.
The Global warming agenda froze the nuts off a lot of People over the last few weeks.

The psychology of self delusion knows no bounds.

Caption: Video Id: kuovqFwUtDc Type: Youtube Video
Embedded video Youtube Video

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Wed Jan 19, 2011 13:57

Must try harder.

have you checkled out his lardship's oil share portfolio? I haven't, but my scepticism tells me he's up to his plummy tones in Shell and BP at least.

But you are right about the psychology of self-delusion, at least for the gullible and disinformed unfortunates who dont have the time to acess the scientifically attested data.

If the temprature rise is delusory why have so many oil-funded think-tanks resorted to so much propaganda and distortion instead of addressing the recorded measurements?

But then you dont need radar to realise that if the North-West Passage and the Arctic Ocean are becoming navigable, and BP has just contracted with Moscow for polar exploration and extraction, glaciers from the Andes to the Hymalayas to Greenland are retreating and unprecedented species collapse are being recorded, then something is askew.

by Peadaar. Wed Jan 19, 2011 17:16

Monghton understands nothing at all about science.
He is a classic luddite Tory.
(Good at creating childish maths puzzles which most people can invent.)

His views:
"Close down 90 per cent of government services and shift power away from the atheistic, humanistic government and into the hands of families and individuals."

("Families and individuals" is code for unregulated Big Business.)

He is the English version of Sarah Palin.

by Peadaar Wed Jan 19, 2011 20:26

Graphs of recent Carbon Dioxide build up at Mauna Loa island in the pacific.
The Carbon Dioxide build-up is unrelenting.
(The seasonal wobbles are caused when the leaves fall off that tree in your own back garden in Autumn.)

Link:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

by Real Scientist Sat Jan 22, 2011 21:39

As one of the founders of the elite “Club of Rome” put it so famously:

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill … All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
http://hubpages.com/hub/Club_of_Rome - Alexander King, founder and Bertrand Schneider, secretary of the”Club of Rome”, the environmental elite think tank in The First Global Revolution, pp.104-105 - http://www.amazon.com/First-Global-Revolution-Report-Co...11075

And Maurice Strong, first Secretary General of the United Nations Environmental Program, said:

“What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries?…In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?”

Maurice Strong´s UN agency was established in 1972 , an outgrowth of this agency became today´s “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” (IPCC). That name ring any bells, Opus & Peadaar?

I'm sure though, that you won't let any of that trouble you, Peadaar, on your crusade, now will ye?

by Logician Sat Jan 22, 2011 22:02

First you kick into top-hyperbolic-gear with this statement:

Peadaar:"254.1 milion years ago there was "The Great Dying"; when most life-forms on earth were wiped out.
Nobody knows why.

you appear to be erroneously making a connection to 'Climate Change', but this is not only hyperbolic but also illogical since as you say, 'no one knows why' it happened

You end the post by saying

Google up "The Great Dying" and see what is in store for us if we don't stop the build up of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere.

Peadaar, YOU already said 'NO ONE knows why' - so how you can then drag in CO2 is beyond comprehension, unless you don't really care about ethics or logic and are just try to push a political agenda.

Perhaps you should start with the basics Peadaar.

Try providing some sort of link to some sort of PROOF that CO2 is a climate driver. I already told you there is actual evidence that CO2 lags behind temperature, by a factor of approx 800 yrs.

Try bringing some science Peadaar, and a little less hyperbolic alarmist nonsense and I might listen to you.

"The main conclusion one arrives at the analysis is that CO2 has not a causal relation with global warming and it is not powerful enough to cause the historical changes in temperature that were observed. The main argument is the absence of immediate correlation between CO2 changes preceding temperature either for global or local changes.....The anthropogenic wasting of fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere shows no relation with the temperature changes even in an annual basis. The absence of immediate relation between CO2 and temperature is evidence that rising its mix ratio in the atmosphere will not imply more absorption and time residence of energy over the Earth surface.....The main implication is that temperature increase predictions based on CO2 driving models are not reliable."
Paulo Cesar Soares 2010: International Journal of Geosciences

Only 9,099 Of Last 10,500 Years Warmer Than 2010!! Shock Horror!!!

by Real Scientist Sat Jan 22, 2011 22:11

here's the link to that example of actual real science I posted above, Peadarr:
http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?pape...gn=01

and here's a link to a 'media report' (not to be confused with a link to an actual science paper, Peadaar, it's merely a media report - it may not even be accurate - media reports often are not accurate.

Cosmic rays contribute 40 p.c. to global warming: study - http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/articl...4.ece
Physicist and the former ISRO chairman, U.R. Rao, has calculated that cosmic rays — which, unlike carbon emissions, cannot be controlled by human activity — have a much larger impact on climate change than The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims.

Releasing Dr. Rao's findings as a discussion paper on Thursday, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh noted that “the impact of cosmic ray intensity on climate change has thus far been largely ignored by the mainstream scientific consensus.” He added that the “unidimensional focus” on carbon emissions by most Western countries put additional pressure on countries like India in international climate negotiations.

The continuing increase in solar activity has caused a 9 per cent decrease in cosmic ray intensity over the last 150 years, which results in less cloud cover, which in turn results in less albedo radiation being reflected back to the space, causing an increase in the Earth's surface temperature.

While the impact of cosmic rays on climate change has been studied before, Dr. Rao's paper quantifies their contribution to global warming and concludes that “the future prediction of global warming presented by IPCC's fourth report requires a relook to take into the effect due to long term changes in the galactic cosmic ray intensity.”

Food for thought nonetheless.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Sun Jan 23, 2011 14:08

Why do I reach for my shotgun when I hear that phrase??

Because science works off acceptance of doubt as part of its progressive methodology, not the promulgation of some one-true-church mentality driving any sense of certainty.

Also because of the pseudo-scientific lobbying of vested corporate interests through their purpose-built think-tanks to ensure their agendas continue to drive political inaction on issues generally accepted by the vast majority of practising scientists.

Aside form the climate elements, these same extractive industries are turning the planet into a quarry where the victims of their predations are dismissed with a regal 'let them eat fumes' contempt.

Ask the fishermen and others in the Mexican Gulf, how benign these parasites are.

Or does your actual REAL science include the Ogoni and Niger delta?

by Real Scientist Sun Jan 23, 2011 15:35

So far Opus, all you have posted here is mainly classifiable as 'rhetorical obfuscation'.

As far as I can see you have only offered strawman-arguments, while refusing to address any of the actual information presented.

You appear to be seriously confused as to what constitutes 'Pollution/Environmental' issues, and what constitutes examples of 'Climate Science'.

Your listed examples are mostly examples of Ecological/Pollution damage and have nothing to do with the science relating to Global Warming - a frequent characteristic a lot of Climate Alarmists display, I have noticed.

I suspect this is because they are motivated mainly by a political agenda, but I could be wrong. It may simply be the result of not delving deep enough into the literature and accepting the, frequently hysterical and ultimately shallow, media portrayal of the issues.

I suspect that many of them do not really understand how climate works, nor do they appear to me to understand that current levels of knowledge of how this chaotic system works are woefully inadequate for anyone to go around making the sort of wildly alarmist 'predictions' that Climate 'scientists', such as leading-light of the Green-movement and NASA-GISS employee James Hansen, have been making since the early 80's.

That most or all of Hansen's 'predictions' from the 80's/early 90's, have turned out to be over-blown hyped-up nonsense seems not to bother the Alarmists one little bit.

That is not 'science', Opus.

Such obvious willingness to ignore any and all apparent evidence which contradicts, and even in some cases appears to Falsify, their belief in AGW/CO2, is far closer to 'Religion' than 'Science'.

This is the behaviour of 'True-believers', and any amount of references to what you 'corporations' and 'corporate science' won't change that fact one little bit.

The Climate scientists are well-funded and well-supported by both Public and Private money

Gov't's, and large well-funded organisations such as Greenpeace, and have spent millions (and possibly billions) funding 'Climate research' - the CRU (Employer of Phil Jones of 'Climategate'-fame etc) has received at least 26 MILLION Pounds Sterling in Gov't funding alone, as well as recieving unknown amounts of PRIVATE funding from such companies as SHELL & BP.

Yet for some reason this does not seem to bother you at all, despite your disparaging oblique references to Shell.

If Shell are so evil (and I have little doubt that they are in many ways) then why is it that you have no problem with the CRU receiving funding from them? Why does that not ring alarm bells for you since you appear to find them so evil?.

by Real Scientist Sun Jan 23, 2011 15:58

Some more real science

Cornell University Library : Cosmic Rays and Climate http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1938
Author: Jasper Kirkby (Submitted on 11 Apr 2008)

Abstract: Among the most puzzling questions in climate change is that of solar-climate variability, which has attracted the attention of scientists for more than two centuries. Until recently, even the existence of solar-climate variability has been controversial - perhaps because the observations had largely involved temporary correlations between climate and the sunspot cycle. Over the last few years, however, diverse reconstructions of past climate change have revealed clear associations with cosmic ray variations recorded in cosmogenic isotope archives, providing persuasive evidence for solar or cosmic ray forcing of the climate. However, despite the increasing evidence of its importance, solar climate variability is likely to remain controversial until a physical mechanism is established.

Although this remains a mystery, observations suggest that cloud cover may be influenced by cosmic rays, which are modulated by the solar wind and, on longer time scales, by the geomagnetic field and by the galactic environment of Earth.

Two different classes of microphysical mechanisms have been proposed to connect cosmic rays with clouds: firstly, an influence of cosmic rays on the production of cloud condensation nuclei and, secondly, an influence of cosmic rays on the global electrical circuit in the atmosphere and, in turn, on ice nucleation and other cloud microphysical processes.

Considerable progress on understanding ion-aerosol-cloud processes has been made in recent years, and the results are suggestive of a physically- plausible link between cosmic rays, clouds and climate. However, a concerted effort is now required to carry out definitive laboratory measurements of the fundamental physical and chemical processes involved, and to evaluate their climatic significance with dedicated field observations and modelling studies.

In 1998, Kirby made the 'mistake' of stating that the sun and cosmic rays "will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth's temperature that we have seen in the last century." Global warming, he theorized, may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth's temperature.

Kirkby was immediately condemned by climate scientists for minimizing the role of human beings in global warming.

Stories appeared in the media disparaged him, by citing scientists who feared oil-industry lobbyists would use his statements to discredit the greenhouse effect.

Due to funding sources being reluctant to be the target of such adverse publicity, It took Kirby nearly 10 more years before he could complete the experiment.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Sun Jan 23, 2011 16:19

Perhaps because I'm not even surprised. I've been aware of Shell's modus operandi since its sanction-busting days when I lived in southern Africa back in the sixties. Wikileaks just gave us a little concrete evidence on their grip on Nigeria's 'democracy', so we can imagine how deep they are in our own buncha altar-boys.

Political agenda?Certainly, the only ones who dont seem to have one are tories. I aint ready for abdication to the Monday Club just yet.

'..shallow media portrayal...'. Well I am not a practising scientist, but I have been reading New Scientist and Scientific American since the seventies so am not entirely illiterate, as you seem to wish to imply.

Nor do I need great familiarity with the micro-statistics to know the Arctic Ocean and North West Passage are de-icing at unprecedented rates, and that glaciers are following suit. I recognise their are vested political interests on both sides, but do not presume my opponent is automatically blinkered until I detect firm evidence.

I consider any claim of infallible actual REAL science as a political rather than a scientific stance, and an unscientific one at that, as it rings of an attempt to intimidate rather than elucidate. Scientists are as prone to dogmatic attachment to their pet theories as any theologian, and equally prone to monopolise knowlege and information to serve their own ends.
Your suspicion that '..many of them do not really(there it is agin)understand how climate works...' implies your superior knowlege, just the sort of self-certainty that is, in my lay opinion, inimical to good science.
I am sure you are also aware of the obligation and responsibility on science and its practitioners to practise, at least to some degree, a precautionary principle.

I remain, yours sceptically..

by Real Scientist Sun Jan 23, 2011 16:34

so far you have yet to address any data graph or any Abstract of Scientific Papers, posted by me in the last week, Opus.

All see in your latest reply is just more of the same old rhetoric, while continuing to ignore evidence presented.

Instead of continuing to attempt to engage in some sort of tit-for-tat over which of us is more/less knowledgeable/arrogant, why not just address the data presented and maybe discuss the possible implications?

Addressing the information would seem a better use of both our time rather than some ego-driven/childish 'competition'.

by Real Scientist Sun Jan 23, 2011 16:59

New Phytologist Journal : A relationship between galactic cosmic radiation and tree rings - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137....tract
Sigrid Dengel, Dominik Aeby, John Grace

Abstract:
• Here, we investigated the interannual variation in the growth rings formed by Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) trees in northern Britain (55°N, 3°W) over the period 1961–2005 in an attempt to disentangle the influence of atmospheric variables acting at different times of year.
• Annual growth rings, measured along the north radius of freshly cut (frozen) tree discs and climatological data recorded at an adjacent site were used in the study. Correlations were based on Pearson product–moment correlation coefficients between the annual growth anomaly and these climatic and atmospheric factors.
• Rather weak correlations between these variables and growth were found. However, there was a consistent and statistically significant relationship between growth of the trees and the flux density of galactic cosmic radiation. Moreover, there was an underlying periodicity in growth, with four minima since 1961, resembling the period cycle of galactic cosmic radiation.

Cosmic pattern to UK tree growth - http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_831100...3.stm

The growth of British trees appears to follow a cosmic pattern, with trees growing faster when high levels of cosmic radiation arrive from space.

Researchers made the discovery studying how growth rings of spruce trees have varied over the past half a century.

As yet, they cannot explain the pattern, but variation in cosmic rays impacted tree growth more than changes in temperature or precipitation.

The study is published in the scientific journal New Phytologist.

“We were originally interested in a different topic, the climatological factors influencing forest growth,” says Ms Sigrid Dengel a postgraduate researcher at the Institute of Atmospheric and Environmental Science at the University of Edinburgh.

The relation of the rings to the solar cycle was much stronger than to any climatological factors . . .

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Sun Jan 23, 2011 17:21

Is more or less equivalent to telling me because I have not addressed the details of rocket science, or nuclear physics' esoteric formulae, I am unqualified to comment on the wisdom of nuclear proliferation or the inappropriateness of mega-spends on Martian exploration while we have a billion subsisting in hunger.

You can dismiss it as 'rhetorical obfuscation'. I call the recorded facts(in the journals you have dismissed as 'shallow media portrayal' ) information I can base judgement on. Your ad hominem mode of argument does not incline me to trust your data or sources. Do you deny the evidence for Arctic ice dispersal?Species collapse? Fisheries depletion?Climate change is one element on a spectrum of anthropological degradation, my mind remains open to argument and information, but your conviction does not convince me your data is objective. And you are right on one thing. My time is more valuable than to afford credence to apparently decided certitudes on obviously undecided, and currently undecidable, issues.
You may see a competition, I am querying credibility. Yours shrinks. But that is just MY childish egoism. If I have generated a little scepticism of such certitudes, from either side, that is sufficient. I will happily leave the scientific details to those, such as your good self, who are so disposed.
I respect science, not self-proclaimed scientists. Not since Mengele ran his laboratory. For every decent scientist like vanunu we have a hundred self-serving career-artists under the brolly of what THEY say on their tins.

Brian Cowen could tell me the sky is blue. I wouldn't even look up. I'd ask someone I trusted. Science is not serving the people, except indirectly; it is, like our commodified planet, serving a numericaly shrinking but acquisitively aggrandising, elite.

Thats what rings my alarm bells, not your use of Shell to smear your opponents selectively.

by Real Scientist Sun Jan 23, 2011 18:00

I respect science, not self-proclaimed scientists. Not since Mengele ran his laboratory.

A seriously childish response.

Brian Cowen could tell me the sky is blue. I wouldn't even look up

THAT explains a lot, Opus.

Personally I'd just look up and check for myself. The idea of asking for someone else's opinion in such a simple matter seems a little ridiculous to be honest, but each to their own

BTW you were the one that initially brought SHELL & BP into the conversation.

"pseudo-scientific lobbying of vested corporate interests through their purpose-built think-tanks"

To now claim that any reference to these companies is an attempt "to smear ... opponents selectively" is extremely hypocritical, but each to their own.

Continued attempts a having some sort of adult conversation with you is a waste of time it appears, since all you consistently offer is response is ridiculous mis-carachterisations & stock-rhetorical responses, in a silly effort to engage in some ego-driven pissing-contest.

Good luck to you in that, I really can't see how that is anything but a waste of time

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Sun Jan 23, 2011 18:22

Maybe its yourself is raising the temperature with all that tautological REAL SCIENCE. Every one else is a chancer, obviously. Not one point addressed in your recidivistically ad hominem homily to your own true monocular vision.

You and the infallible Papa Razzi should open a Canonical Science Institute. You could be the loose one.

But, as recomended, I'm now desisting from further feeding your derailing attempts. you are good at it though.
Oiche mhaith. dont bang your halo on the doorframe.

by Real Scientist Sun Jan 23, 2011 18:45

have you ever actually read your own ridiculous rants?

by Loki Sun Jan 23, 2011 19:07

And still the ice melts. No amount of denial will change that. Theres a vid at the link.

New research shows that 2010 set new records for the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, expected to be a major contributor to projected sea level rises in coming decades.

"This past melt season was exceptional, with melting in some areas stretching up to 50 days longer than average," said Dr. Marco Tedesco, director of the Cryospheric Processes Laboratory at The City College of New York (CCNY – CUNY), who is leading a project studying variables that affect ice sheet melting.

"Melting in 2010 started exceptionally early at the end of April and ended quite late in mid- September."

The study, with different aspects sponsored by World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the National Science Foundation and NASA, examined surface temperature anomalies over the Greenland ice sheet surface, as well as estimates of surface melting from satellite data, ground observations and models.

by Real Scientist Sun Jan 23, 2011 19:29

my only contention is with the discredited CO2 AGW hypothesis - ice melting does not affect that one way or the other.

If you read what I posted earlier with regard to the AGW hypothesis you'd see that.

simply labeling all dissension on the AGW hypothesis as 'denial' is nothing but propagandist nonsense.

by opus diablost - the regressive hypocrite party Mon Jan 24, 2011 11:02

'..does not affect that one way or the other.'

Has it crossed your occasional thought, REAL SCIENTIST, that you are confusing cause and outcome?

Methinks you are trying to propose that someone contended the ice melting affects the global atmospheric temperature. Can you not understand that the contention is that the melting icecap is a definite indicator that unprecedented temperatures are being generated(whatever the possible drivers of this condition). Or do you think that the Arctic Ocean was navigable when Franklin was seeking the North-West Passage and that he just picked the wrong route?

Yes I do read my 'own rants', and often recognise I have misread or mis-stated. I hope I will retain the critical faculty to continue that SCIENTIFIC approach to evidence and analysis. I wont bother to retaliate in kind to your insults, but do suggest you experiment with your own prescriptive suggestion.

Your preconcieved agenda is showing.

by Real Scientist Mon Jan 24, 2011 13:21

"the melting icecap is a definite indicator that unprecedented temperatures are being generated(whatever the possible drivers of this condition)"

See the RED bits - that's the 'unprecedented' Temperature you were babbling about

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Mon Jan 24, 2011 14:10

grand RS.So your case, when you are not being gratuously insulting and dismissive of any question, is that the icecap is cooler now than in Roman or Minoan peaks.

The problem for your case is that its belligerent presentation undermines any trust in the validity of your data or contention. Despite that I am quite happy to accept you have a case, until I see your data refuted by someone with a slightly more rational approach to honest questions. But your dogmatic presentation is more likely to provoke rejection(I've resisted dropping to your standard of monologue so far)of any valid case you might have.

You will excuse me if I retain an open mind while I consider more urgent pending problems, such as the current escalation in food prices as instability increases and speculators(many of whom are allied to the same oil corporations you appear to champion)run rampant.

For the sake of your case, I suggest you try to live up to the reputation you broadcast in your pseudonym. Meantime, why are there no records of trans-polar navigation from Phoenician, Viking, or Roman records. If your graph is valid, surely the Arctic was a northern Mediterranean when Caesar was a nipper.

My interest is not in winning an argument, as you seem to presume, but in eliciting trustable information in a sea of organised disinformation.

Your comments seem to deny such a corporate disinformation campaign is being waged. That does not agree with the custom of such paragons of objectivity as Shell and BP.

My own conviction, for what its worth, is that that the war economy being driven by Washington/NATO will get us long before AGW.

by Real Scientist Mon Jan 24, 2011 14:49

You can't even keep up with your own glaring contradictory statements

You never learn. We've been over this before

"Your comments seem to deny such a corporate disinformation campaign is being waged. That does not agree with the custom of such paragons of objectivity as Shell and BP.
"

My comments deny nothing. If any thing, it is you who are in denial. YOU are merely just grasping at straws, as usual, in order to avoid dealing with actual data and to avoid having to consider the implications of the Scientific papers presented here.

SHELL & BP part- financied the CRU.
So if, according to YOUR logiic, SHELL & BP finacing something makes it immediately suspect, THEN their financing of the CRU should make any person that holds that view (i.e. YOU) suspicious.

This is YOUR logic, NOT mine btw.

None of the scientific information presented here is mine. Your dismissal of it, your inability to deal with it, is a product of your own bias, and has nothing to do with me.

The CRU collated one of 3 temperature records used worldwide. In the process they did something which they like to call 'homogenisation' of data, but which many others, more willing to speak in plain English, like to call 'adding arbitrary amounts to the data collected, so as to drive the 'observed' temperature figures upward'

The proof for this lies in the file called "Harry - Read me.txt" which was one of the files released in the so-called "Climate-gate" data-dump of 19th Nov 2009. In plain english the programmer, sounding mightily P'd off, just flat out admits that he/she is 'making it up' as he/she goes along, because the data-sets are in such bad condition, containing data from wildly differing sources, in different locations, with breaks in the continuity of the data. Even the programmer admits that the integrity of the data is highly questionable.

Whatever it is, THAT is NOT Science,

Recently the NZ Gov''t agency tasked with keeping 'official' temperature records have been forced to abandon their Temp-data-set because, once again, the NZ 'scientists' were caught-out performing similar shenanigans with the raw data. The resultant data-set is now considered by NZ gov't agencies to be highly questionable.

Essentially the 'scientists' collating this data did exactly what the boys at CRU did - they added to the observed Temperature values in what, they have now been forced to admit, is an arbitrary way. they did not willingly admit this but were forced to. When forced to address the issue they have been unable to adequately explain or justify increasing the temperature figures in the way that they did.

NZ TEMPERATURE-record: before and after essentially arbitrary 'adjustment'

by Loki - Donner Party Mon Jan 24, 2011 15:08

More at the link.

Global warming is already affecting the earth in a variety of ways that demand our attention. Now, research carried out at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem indicates that many tree species might become extinct due to climate change if no action is taken in time.

According to the research, trees which disperse their seeds by wind, such as pines and maples, will be unable to spread at a pace that can cope with expected climate changes.

The research, which focused on the ecological consequences of expected changes in the climate and the environment on tree spread, was conducted by Prof. Ran Nathan, head of the Alexander Silberman Institute of Life Science at the Hebrew University; his student, Nir Horvitz; and researchers from abroad.

Climate changes, which can be sensed already today and which are expected to continue in the next 50 years, include the increase of carbon dioxide concentration in the air and a reduction of surface wind speed in many areas. On the basis of earlier work, elevated concentration of carbon dioxide is expected to cause trees to produce many more seeds and to reach maturity earlier than under current conditions, hence speeding up their spread. On the other hand, the weakening of wind speed in certain areas should reduce spread rate of these trees. The balance between these opposing forces remained unknown.

by Financial Criminal Mon Jan 24, 2011 20:36

Wherever there is a scam going on, there will you find always Goldman Sachs, up to their necks in it

Rolling Stone exposes Goldman Sachs and the carbon credit scam - http://www.examiner.com/politics-in-san-francisco/rolli...-scam

along of course with a whole host of other financial hoaxers.

Carbon trading surges in London - http://www.fiercefinance.com/story/carbon-trading-surge...07-06

What the Banksters want, the Banksters usually get, as recent events in Ireland have shown - they have servants everywhere. Politics,Media, Industry, Academia . . . - you name it - the Banksters have people on the inside working for them, everywhere.

Banksters formed the first Seekrit intelligence networks and agents, loooooong before Despotic Rulers or Nation States got in on the act

by Climate Crasher Mon Jan 24, 2011 20:54

http://www.bangordailynews.com/external/mobile/index.ph...64627

air and wind chills expected to dip to 50 below zero (F) ( -50 F = MINUS 46 Celsius) to northern New England, prompting officials to warn residents to take precautions against the cold.

The National Weather Service in Caribou issued a statewide wind chill warning Sunday night effective through Monday.

Forecast for the Rest of Winter Looks Rough - http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/news/story/44657/basta...f.asp

Persistent Cold, Storminess to Continue from Plains to East

While cold weather is of course a part of winter, the persistent nature of colder-than-normal conditions and a lack of brief warm spells people can typically look forward to during midwinter have been unusual this season. Temperatures since Dec. 1, 2010 have averaged below normal from Boston and New York City to Chicago, Minneapolis, New Orleans, Atlanta and even Miami.

Temperatures are expected to continue averaging below normal in many of these places, from the northern and central Plains into the East, through at least the middle of February.

Remember to click your heels together 3 times and repeat non-stop your favourite new Mantra, Klimate-kiddies . . . "Weather is not climate, weather is not climate . . . . etc etc etc ad infinitum . .

by Arctic Roller Mon Jan 24, 2011 21:40

With these Orwellian headlines the Guardian is really spoiling us.

There was this a few weeks ago... http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/20/uk-...rming

by Arctic Roller Mon Jan 24, 2011 23:20

Gerd Leipold, the outgoing leader of Greenpeace, admitted that his organization's recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was "a mistake." Greenpeace said in a July 15, 2009 press release that there will be an ice-free Arctic by 2030 because of global warming. BBC reporter Stephen Sackur on the "Hardtalk" program pressed Leipold until he finally admitted the claim was wrong.

Caption: Video Id: NC7bE9jopXE Type: Youtube Video
Greepeace leader caught live on TV telling complete porkies

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Tue Jan 25, 2011 12:01

Its a wonder I need a fire at all. You dont help your case by jumping from 'mistake' to 'complete porkies', in one conclusive bound.

I've dealt with a few Greenpeace people. They have all the ambitions and passions of those on the other side. On the scale of the issue, 30 or 130 years is not the issue. The issue is our collective responsibility to later generations. They have no automatic right to existence, but given that there will be a human population for a while yet, should we be destroying the resource base consumptively or managing it sustainably?

A lot of the dismissals remind me of Bertie's 20:20 vision for our economic soft-landing.
Wishful thining elevated to dogmatic ideological idiocy.

Titanic self-confidence does collateral damage. And not to icebergs. They will outlast us all as individuals. To be pumping the size of the Greenland icecap as evidence of its impregnable stability strikes me as a bit like saying I never died before so it cannot happen. Surely false logic?

by Loki - Donner Party Tue Jan 25, 2011 15:31

Despite repeated warnings by environmental and climate experts that reduction of fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions is fundamental to forestalling global warming, disaster appears imminent. According to the latest statistics, unprecedented climate change has Earth hurtling down a path of catastrophic proportions

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Tue Jan 25, 2011 15:56

I see that report re-itterates the fact that cheap coal is about the 'filthiest' of carbon contributors.

Someone should ask the Queensland administration if they think there could possibly be any connection between them being a major source of same for Chinese industry, and their recent hose-down. No doubt they would call it coincidental. They might even be right, but I'd reassess the data.
Mind you China is already pre-empting a policy revision by buying up the mines and coal in situ. And with the yanks trying to keep them away from oil conversion, lest they contend, its hard to blame a state with their populations and poverty problems. And they are making major strides on greener technolgy development. Trouble is, their success is freaking the fuck out of Uncle Sam/Tom.

by Facts Person. Tue Jan 25, 2011 17:16

What is happening in Alaska should give food for thought.

In the 1940s a massive aerial photograpic survey of Alaska was conducted.
(The thousands of photos were only rediscovered in the last decade.)
An exact same survey was conducted over the last few years to see what vegetation changes had occured in Northern Alaska. between surveys.
The results are dramatic.

Green Shrubs are now marching "like shock troops" along the North Slope where in 1944 there was nothing but the hardiest lichens.

See the actual scientific paper here (It's a 6mb .pdf so it'll take a while to download on a slow connection.):

http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/sid/personnel/sturm/pdf...8.pdf

In another study the Walrus population seems to be in trouble due to the lack of sea ice.
See article:

http://climateprogress.org/2010/09/13/walruses-melting-...ming/

None of this stuff is made up.

by Arctic roller Tue Jan 25, 2011 17:21

well given what I've seen you write in this thread alone, your complete (and continuing) unwillingness to halt the ad hominem and deal with the data presented and it's implications, your references to 'Mengele','Gas' & 'corporate Scientists' and your comments about Shell & BP, and your obvious dismissive hypocrisy when it was pointed out to that both Shell & BP helped finance the CRU, I hardly think you're in any position to be handing out lectures to anyone else on the subject of either 'Polemic' OR 'Logic' . . . . . not that anyone pointing this out to you would ever halt you in your stride though . . . .

by Student of Science. Tue Jan 25, 2011 21:18

The fact that you cite a website called "Whatsupwiththat.com" shows how Real you are "Real Scientist".

The intellectual standards demanded of REAL scientists are transcendentally higher than that.
Bar none.
Real scientists don't call themselves "Real Scientists".
That is for Snake Oil Salesmen.
Snake Oil Salesmen are cimate change deniers.
In the face of overwhelming evidence.

by Real Scientist Tue Jan 25, 2011 21:56

You don't appear much concerned with science, real or otherwise - there's plenty of examples here, backed up with citations and actual data, posted on this thread, and like many before you, you have completely ignored it all.

Instead you laughably post sly innuendo and ad hominem attacks on character, while having the sheer unmitigated gall to hypocritically rant about what science is, or is not

Taking issue with a web-site solely on the grounds of a very inoffensive name is utterly peurile.

It appears that since you have nothing worthwhile to say about the information it's simpler for you to invent spurious irrational objections in a lame attempt to dismiss information and informed opinion presented to you. Personally I suspect that this intemperate, ill-informed and irrational reaction of yours may have something to do with a complete inability on your part to to present anything even resembling a factual rebuttal of ANY of the information and data presented here, complete with relevant citations from the respective scientific journals] .

Anyone that would object to the info contained on a website purely on the basis of the website name alone, is nothing but a joke themselves

So far neither yourself nor any of the other quasi-religious adherents to this fairly dis-credited hypothesis of CO2 being the driver of Climate, have made any attempt to address the actual science, all the while making grandiose utterly hollow pronouncements proclaiming your devotion to 'Science'.

I'm beginning to wonder if you lot are not actual skeptics in disguise, posting these replies so as to make adherents to the AGW/CO2-hypothesis look comically inept.

If so, do please keep it up, because you're doing a wonderful job of totally discrediting proponents of the the CO2 agenda

by Student of Science. Tue Jan 25, 2011 22:41

Not a bit of it Mr "Real Scientist."

I went to the trouble of going through the blood-sweat-and-tears necessary to get an actual degree in Science.
I would know somebody who has not gone through such rigourous intellectual torture.
The Snake Oil website you referred to speaks volumes.

by Real Scientist Tue Jan 25, 2011 23:35

your claims about your scientific brilliance are seriously doubtful given your continued complete commitment to ignoring all of the Scientific data and Abstracts of Papers presented here.

Your continued commitment to mere ad hominem attack speaks volumes as to your likely severe limitations in the realm of scientific competence

by sean Wed Jan 26, 2011 15:01

the one thing i have never understood in all the debate on co2 and climate change is how come in the distant past when we had ice ages and warming periods there were far fewer people and they were not using all the coal, oil, resources, etc that we today do?

by Loki - Donner Party Wed Jan 26, 2011 16:46

Not a solution acceptable today.

Genghis Khan has been branded the greenest invader in history - after his murderous conquests killed so many people that huge swathes of cultivated land returned to forest.

The Mongol leader, who established a vast empire between the 13th and 14th centuries, helped remove nearly 700million tons of carbon from the atmosphere, claims a new study.

The deaths of 40million people meant that large areas of cultivated land grew thick once again with trees, which absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

And, although his methods may be difficult for environmentalists to accept, ecologists believe it may be the first ever case of successful manmade global cooling.

by Loki - Donner Party Thu Jan 27, 2011 17:38

More on Climate Change in the past.

The Roman Conquest, the Black Death and the discovery of America -- by modifying the nature of the forests -- have had a significant impact on the environment. These are the findings of EPFL scientists who have researched our long history of emitting carbon into the environment.

"Humans didn't wait for the industrial revolution to provoke environment and climate change. They have been having an influence for at least 8000 years." Jed Kaplan is putting forward a new interpretation of the history of humans and their environment. This professor at EPFL and his colleague Kristen Krumhardt have developed a model that demonstrates the link between population increase and deforestation. The method enables a fairly precise estimate of human-origin carbon emissions before the advent of industrialization.

The story of our influence on the climate began with the first farmers. At that time, the prevailing technology didn't allow an optimal use of the soil. "For each individual, it was necessary to clear a very large area of forest," explains Jed Kaplan. However, with time, irrigation, better tools, seeds and fertilizer became more effficient. This development was a critical factor, which would partially counterbalance the increase in population, and contain the impact of human pressure on the natural environment.

by Student of Science. Fri Jan 28, 2011 08:03

Science knows NO certainty Loki.

That is why science is called science.

Some upstart young genius is even now trying to overthrow Einstein.
(Hundreds of thousands have failed to overthrow Einstein already.)

So I wouldn't hold my breath.

by Arctic Roller Fri Jan 28, 2011 11:45

will not do anything to improve the complete lack of credibility you possess when it comes to anything that could be described as 'science'

Your obvious ignorance of even the most basic knowledge of heat and thermodynamics prove that if you ever were an actual student of science you were a complete failure at learning the even the most rudimentary scientific facts.

anyone unfortunate enough to find themselves reading your inane comments on any matter concerning climate science ( or indeed any other type of science) would be wise to treat with derision. your silly grandiose pronouncements on 'science',

by pv Fri Jan 28, 2011 12:10

Under the title “Something new” , Real Scientist puts up a reference to a “refereed “ paper that was published in a magazine called Energy and Environment:
“Refereed Papers:- Uncertainty in the Global Average Surface Air Temperature Index: A Representative Lower Limit http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/c47t1650k0j2...n047/”

Real Scientist either doesn’t know or is simply not mentioning the fact that his “Something new” post is not new at all , but an attempt to re-run some of the fraudulent arguments put forward by climate change deniers last year in what came to be known as the Climategate affair. Climate change deniers used the affair to suggest that scientific papers were being deliberately suppressed by ideologically motivated scientists at East Anglia University . New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has called Climategate "a fraud concocted by opponents of climate action, then bought into by many in the news media."
.

Energy and Environment Magazine :

The Scopus database of abstracts and citations for scholarly journal articles lists Energy and Environment not as a scientific journal at all , but as a trade journal . Scopus defines a trade journal as "A serial publication covering and intended to reach a specific industry, trade or type of business." and "Usually a glossy magazine type of periodical with articles on topical subjects, many news items and advertisements that will appeal to those in the field. Trade Journals are seldom refereed and do not always have an editorial board. Abstracts are usually short or non-existent, and few or no references are given. Usually an ISSN is available"

The editors of Energy and Environment - which isn’t even listed in the ISI Web of Knowledge academic database - are Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen and Dr Benny Peiser .

Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen:

The Disinformation Database writes that Boehmer-Christiansen is an advising member of the "Scientific Alliance," an organization formed by a UK businessman who was fed up with "all this environmental stuff."
The Scientific Alliance was set up by Robert Durward and a public relations firm called Foresight Communications:

“Durward, owner of a rock quarry in the UK, formed the Alliance out of frustration over an aggregate tax being proposed for the quarry industry. In addition to fighting the tax, the alliance also provided "expert" scientific advice on subjects like transport, climate change and biodiversity. Durward described himself, "as a businessman who is totally fed up with all this environmental stuff… much of it unjustified, such as the climate change levy."
At the time of the alliance’s formation, Durward refused to disclose the names of its financial backers.
In December 2004, the Scientific Alliance teamed up with the ExxonMobil-funded George C. Marshall Institute to produce a paper titled "Climate Issues and Questions."’
In January 2005, the Scientific Alliance held a half-day seminar on the "alarmism" around the issue of climate change. Speakers included Fred Singer see http://www.desmogblog.com/no-apology-is-owed-dr-s-fred-...oming and Benny Peiser.
Dr Boehmer-Christiansen recently attended the 4th International Climate Change Conference hosted by the Heartland Institute. Heartland calls itself "a genuinely independent source of research and commentary,”. In fact it has been a frequent ally of, and funded by, the tobacco industry. According to a 1995 internal report by Philip Morris USA on its corporate contributions budget, the company uses Heartland’s academic contributions "as a strategic tool to promote our overall business objectives and to advance our government affairs agenda," in particular by supporting "the work of free market 'think tanks' and other public policy groups whose philosophy is consistent with our point of view.

Dr Benny Peiser:

Boehmer-Christiansen’s fellow editor at Energy and Environment is Benny Peiser. According to his Wikipedia entry, Peiser is a regular contributor to Canada's National Post a newspaper published by convicted fraudster and mining magnate , Conrad Moffat Black - Baron Black of Crossharbour, OC, PC (Can.), KCSG to you and me .
Benny Peiser is also director of the secretly-funded Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) - the organisation behind the Climategate smear campaign . In its first year’s accounts the foundation showed a balance of £503,302. Refusing to disclose the source of this money GWPF said ,
"the soil we till is highly controversial, and anyone who puts their head above the parapet has to be prepared to endure a degree of public vilification. For that reason we offer all our donors the protection of anonymity.”
The GWPF – a registered charity - is located at 1 Carlton House Terrace, London, in a room rented from the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining.

Lord Lawson of Blaby and the Global Warming Foundation:

The foundation’s chairman is Lord Lawson of Blaby .Before becoming a peer ,Lord Lawson Blaby was Nigel Lawson - a member of Margaret Thatcher’s cabinet and a key proponent of Thatcher’s privatisation policy. As head of the Department of Energy , Lawson “set the course for the later privatisations of the gas and electricity industries and on his return to the Treasury he worked closely with the Department of Trade and Industry in privatising British Airways, British Telecom, and British Gas” .
See: http://www.biographybase.com/biography/Lawson_Nigel.html

Lord Lawson of Blaby gave evidence to the House of Commons’ science and technology committee in March 2010 in relation to the allegations of malpractice the CGWP had made against East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit . Last year The Guardian carried this verbatim account of Lord Lawson of Blaby’s questioning by Graham Stringer of the science and technology committee :

Q15 Graham Stringer: Can you tell us how your organisation is funded? We have had an email this morning saying that you have not been transparent in the funding of your organisation.

Lord Lawson of Blaby: I do not think that is within your terms of reference. I am happy to answer it, but we have got quite a lot to do which is within the terms of reference.

Q16 Chairman: Could you just answer it very briefly?

Lord Lawson of Blaby: We have donations from private individuals and private charitable trusts. That is how we are financed. We have one absolutely strict rule: we will not accept any money at all from the energy industry or anyone who has any significant interest in the energy industry.

Q17 Graham Stringer: In one sense you are right, it is not within our terms of reference, but this is a very fraught and vexed question and there is distrust on both sides, so it is better to be clear. Is there a list of your donors available?

Lord Lawson of Blaby: No, like most thinktanks, not all but like most, we do not publish a list, because if donors wish to remain anonymous, for whatever reasons, perfectly good reasons, then it is their privilege. I am very happy for them to be published.

Q18 Dr Evan Harris: That is strange, because Sense about Science, which is an organisation we hear from a lot, publish all their donors, because they are often accused of being partisan. Would it not be a good idea for you to adopt that rule; otherwise people might have concerns?

Lord Lawson of Blaby: We are absolutely clean. I would be very happy to see the names of all our donors published, I can assure you, it would be very, very good, but if they wish to remain anonymous, for whatever reason, maybe they have other family members who take a different view and they do not want to have a row within the family, maybe they do not want a whole lot of other people asking them for money -

Q19 Chairman: The short answer is you are not giving us the names.

Lord Lawson of Blaby: This is the one in football. It is called playing the man and not the ball. You get a yellow card for that.

Q20 Chairman: Lord Lawson, you are not going to give us those…….

Lord Lawson of Blaby: No, when the annual report comes we will ask our donors if they wish to be named. Some may; some may not.
…………………….

The House of Common Science and Technology Committee investigation:

The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia was investigated by the House of Common Science and Technology Committee.
The full minutes of evidence at which Rt Hon Lord Lawson of Blaby, Chairman, and Dr Benny Peiser, Director, Global Warming Policy Foundation, gave their evidence can be read here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmsel...1.htm

The Select Committee report concluded that the scientific reputation of Professor Jones of East Anglia University and the CRU was “untarnished".

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impact...ils-c

by Student of Science. Fri Jan 28, 2011 12:29

The word "science" has been roped in so much in the arguments above that I will state my case clearly:

We humans are changing the climate.
Full stop.

Are we clever enough to handle it though?

by Real Scientist Fri Jan 28, 2011 12:36

like most of the AGW-'True-Believer' commenters before him/her, PV only seeks to "shoot the messengers" and completely ignores the data, information and conclusions of the scientist presenting the work posted -

This is usually what people do when they have no other basis for argument- it is the behaviour of charlatans

The AGW-'True-believers' complete unwillingness to engage with the actual science is hilariously obvious at this stage

by Student of Science. Fri Jan 28, 2011 12:41

"This is usually what people do when they have no other basis for argument- it is the behaviour of charlatans".

We all know that.

by Arctic Roller Fri Jan 28, 2011 12:44

PV either doesn’t know or is simply choosing to ignore the fact that Paul Krugman is an economist not a scientist of any sort - and is in no way qualified to make definitive-judgments of that sort concerning the subject of climate science - your use of him as a credible authority whose judgment should be listened to, is laughably inept

by Student of Science. Fri Jan 28, 2011 12:51

"Paul Krugman is an economist not a scientist of any sort."

Sad Sad world we live in that such a statement happens to be true.

by Statistician Fri Jan 28, 2011 12:56

There has never ever been a thorough scientific assessment of station errors

Both Phil Jones and James Hansen have described measurement noise as strictly random and don’t mention systematic error at all. They have never bothered to ascertain if the errors in data-recording are truly random but nonetheless have deliberately chosen to treat them as random because they obviously believe this helps their case

Assessment of error methodology showed that guessing an average error is an explicit admission that you have no real physical knowledge of it.

Random error is “stationary,” meaning it is defined as having a constant average magnitude and a mean (average) of zero. When one has to make a guesstimate, one doesn’t really know the magnitude, and doesn’t really know whether the error is stationary.

In short, if one doesn’t know the error is random, then applying the statistics of random error is a MAJOR mistake which casts severe doubt on the validity of all work based on the data sets used

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Fri Jan 28, 2011 12:58

..to your good self, who seems to be descended from the same tribe who brought us the great Easter Island Timber Fellers Club for the erection of replicas of our royal visage.

The first thing any honest 'climate scientist' would do is admit there are NO definitive judgements to be made as of now, and that the precautionary principle should not be thrown overboard to a chorus of consensual 'soft landings'(speaking of economists).

by pv Fri Jan 28, 2011 13:03

The "scientist" who is presenting the "work posted" i e Real Scientist claimed that the research is something new , but it isn't .

When someone writes something that is obviously as wrong as this people surely have every right to question his or her credentials as a real scientist .

by Real Scientist Fri Jan 28, 2011 13:10

In a paper titled , Realtime data filtering models for air temperature measurements, Kenneth Hubbard and Xiaomao Lin at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, showed that there is a large amount of systematic error in surface station temperature measurements.

Prior to Hubbard and Lin's work Professor Phil Jones' only paper addressing systemic error concluded that he himself had "provided an additional demonstration of the robustness of global and hemispheric land surface air temperature series" - this statement has since been proven false by Hubbard and Lin's work

This systematic error mostly comes from diverse source one of which was wind speed effects. These effects cause very significant deviations in measured temperatures.

Under very ideal conditions of siting and maintenance, Hubbard and Lin found that a standard Minimum-Maximum Temperature System sensor produced an average daytime bias of 0.43 C away from the correct temperature, with a standard deviation of (+/-)0.25 C.

Given that temperature anomalies reported by Alarrmists like Jones and Hansen fall within this range, this is a very important piece of data. It could in effect negate most of the work based on the temperature Data-sets produced by most of the climate alarmists 'scientists' such as Phil Jones

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Fri Jan 28, 2011 13:28

And no better man than the Mississippi navigator, himself self-named for the two-fathom call, Mark Twain.

Need I remind you of his caution(there it is again)regarding the credibility of statistics?Liars, damned liars, and statisticians.

He was not saying jettison statistics, but pointing out the tendency of those with hidden agendas to use them to aid their obfuscations.

I take my interpretative cue from the apparent objectivity (or not) of their wielders. Abuse of opponents rather than calm deconstruction of their false hypotheses speaks volumes.

by pv Fri Jan 28, 2011 13:36

That's not what Scientific America or the Nobel prize committee think .

Well-known New York Times columnist and Princeton professor of economics Paul Krugman has been awarded the 2008 Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel .
Sweden's Royal Academy of Sciences noted in a press release. "Theories of economic geography also attempt to specify the forces whereby labor and capital become located in certain places and not others."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=paul...10-13

by grasping at straws Fri Jan 28, 2011 13:55

Krugman is still not an authority on anything but Economics

using him as an authority on Climate science is a joke

by Loki Sun Jan 30, 2011 18:26

Another interesting report points to an increase in temperature in the Arctic Ocean.

The temperatures of North Atlantic Ocean water flowing north into the Arctic Ocean adjacent to Greenland -- the warmest water in at least 2,000 years -- are likely related to the amplification of global warming in the Arctic, says a new international study involving the University of Colorado Boulder.

Led by Robert Spielhagen of the Academy of Sciences, Humanities and Literature in Mainz, Germany, the study showed that water from the Fram Strait that runs between Greenland and Svalbard -- an archipelago constituting the northernmost part of Norway -- has warmed roughly 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the past century. The Fram Strait water temperatures today are about 2.5 degrees F warmer than during the Medieval Warm Period, which heated the North Atlantic from roughly 900 to 1300 and affected the climate in Northern Europe and northern North America.

The team believes that the rapid warming of the Arctic and recent decrease in Arctic sea ice extent are tied to the enhanced heat transfer from the North Atlantic Ocean, said Spielhagen. According to CU-Boulder's National Snow and Ice Data Center, the total loss of Arctic sea ice extent from 1979 to 2009 was an area larger than the state of Alaska, and some scientists there believe the Arctic will become ice-free during the summers within the next several decades.

"Such a warming of the Atlantic water in the Fram Strait is significantly different from all climate variations in the last 2,000 years," said Spielhagen, also of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Keil, Germany.