Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 2
Discussion
Policitian Doesn't Like Being Told It'll Be Six Feet Deep in Viner
Governor Cuomo’s attempt to scapegoat the National Weather Service for an inaccurate forecast in advance is not only completely in error - the NWS did an outstanding job - but is a disservice to the public and to the hard-working staff of this federal agency. No forecast of such an historical disaster is going to be absolutely perfect, but no one who lives here can say this event was not well forecast in advance, or that the warning headlines of its impact to come were not well explained in advance...his statement is disinformation, purposeful or ill-informed.
I’m willing to go one step further and point out that Andrew Cuomo’s attempt to trash the National Weather Service for this unusual lake effect snow event is nothing but a cheap and sleazy attempt on his part to garner public support for a weather forecasting system he wants to implement in his state.
Cuomo has proven time and time again that he is neither qualified nor informed enough to talk about the weather on even a conversational level. The governor needs to leave the weather to the professionals and stick to what he does best acting like a stereotypical, shady New York politician.
http://www.icecap.us/
http://thevane.gawker.com/andrew-cuomo-slams-natl-...
Governor Cuomo’s attempt to scapegoat the National Weather Service for an inaccurate forecast in advance is not only completely in error - the NWS did an outstanding job - but is a disservice to the public and to the hard-working staff of this federal agency. No forecast of such an historical disaster is going to be absolutely perfect, but no one who lives here can say this event was not well forecast in advance, or that the warning headlines of its impact to come were not well explained in advance...his statement is disinformation, purposeful or ill-informed.
I’m willing to go one step further and point out that Andrew Cuomo’s attempt to trash the National Weather Service for this unusual lake effect snow event is nothing but a cheap and sleazy attempt on his part to garner public support for a weather forecasting system he wants to implement in his state.
Cuomo has proven time and time again that he is neither qualified nor informed enough to talk about the weather on even a conversational level. The governor needs to leave the weather to the professionals and stick to what he does best acting like a stereotypical, shady New York politician.
http://www.icecap.us/
http://thevane.gawker.com/andrew-cuomo-slams-natl-...
Gruberization of Climate
Despite the administration and mainstream media’s continued emphasis on so called ‘global warming’ to support their ideological agendas, there are many scientists around the world who strive to educate the populace through editorials, interviews and debates on the real climate change story. One such person, Dr. Gordon Fulks, worked with me and other scientists on amicus briefs to the DC Circuit and Supreme Court on the failed science of the UN and EPA.
In debates, he has had to fight the arguments that the science is settled with 97% in agreement and the 18 year pause does not exist with this year being the warmest year on record. These claims are fabricated.
The 97% claim of support among scientists is complete fraud. The Petition Project, which collected the signatures of 31,000 American scientists, 9,000 of us with PhDs, demonstrated that the claims of overwhelming support are completely bogus. Support among scientists who earn their living from climate hysteria is probably that high but not among those with similar training who do not.
A study of the professional members of the American Meteorological Society (Stenhouse, et al., BAMS 2013) showed support at about 50%, depending on the question asked. A recent study by Legates et al showed support for the most extreme positions that CO2 is causing everything and we are headed for catastrophe is less than 1%.
Temperatures have flat-lined in all the satellite and ground based data sets for an average of 18 years.
Using the actual data that goes into the forecast models used for the 7 day forecasts you see on TV and the internet, we find the global anomaly was a mere +0.07C in November and for the year to date a measly +0.11C, far short of the +0.68C warmest ever anomaly that NOAA claimed last month. One modeler told me “It was obvious to me since about April that NOAA had decided that 2014 was going to be the hottest year ever. The White House needed this for their political objectives.” It appears Gruber’s ideas have legs.
Joseph D’Aleo, December 2014
Politics and Alarmism have No Place in Climate Science but LongQ's Thread is Safe as Scientist tells Folland and Pachauri to Fulks Off
When Professor Chris Folland of the British Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research said: “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models,” he was being exceedingly honest about the way alarmists view science.
Because of the subsequent uproar, he is now willing to admit some role for robust scientific data. But he still seems unable to clearly separate storytelling and computer simulations from real science. He should know that if it is not anchored in logic and evidence, it is not science. Non-scientists may find this difficult to understand, because they have been fed a steady diet of climate alarmism from the media. Tall tales, anchored in “consensus” (politics) and “belief” (religion), are not science.
Appropriate scientific education is also lacking among prominent alarmists such as Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and Dr. Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences. Railroad and electrical engineers should be able to understand this topic, but these two certainly do not.
Past presidents of the NAS who were genuine scientists, such as Dr. Philip Handler, had a better understanding: “Scientists best serve public policy by living within the ethics of science, not those of politics. If the scientific community will not unfrock the charlatans, the public will not discern the difference - science and the nation will suffer.”
What about Folland? It turns out that he has only a bachelor’s degree in physics, hardly enough education to be a real professor. Yet he has won many awards for adhering to the paradigm. Could he be correct that climate simulations actually work? A report by alarmists in the Proceedings of the NAS (Santer 2012) contained the striking admission that their models are high by a factor of two in predicting the global temperature trend. Of course, that admission was buried where no one saw it. Another critique by climatologist Dr. John Christy showed that the models are wrong by a factor of 3.5 in the tropical mid-troposphere where there is supposed to be a “hotspot” caused by carbon dioxide warming. Robust satellite and radiosonde data show no hotspot.
What about the “unusual warming recently” claimed by President Barack Obama’s National Climate Assessment 2014? The only thing unusual has been the lack of global warming for more than 15 years. The Arctic did warm more than any other region after 1975, the tropics only slightly and the Antarctic not at all. But the Arctic also warmed significantly after 1900, to a peak around 1940 that was warmer than today. Surprise! Our climate is cyclical over decades! That’s an ocean effect, not a CO2 effect.
With climate models that do not work, with a missing hotspot, and no net global warming in a long while, the government’s scientific case for alarm strikes out. The San Francisco Examiner had it right in 1888: “There is no joy in Mudville, mighty Casey has struck out.”
Gordon J Fulks PhD holds a doctorate in physics from the University of Chicago Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research
Despite the administration and mainstream media’s continued emphasis on so called ‘global warming’ to support their ideological agendas, there are many scientists around the world who strive to educate the populace through editorials, interviews and debates on the real climate change story. One such person, Dr. Gordon Fulks, worked with me and other scientists on amicus briefs to the DC Circuit and Supreme Court on the failed science of the UN and EPA.
In debates, he has had to fight the arguments that the science is settled with 97% in agreement and the 18 year pause does not exist with this year being the warmest year on record. These claims are fabricated.
The 97% claim of support among scientists is complete fraud. The Petition Project, which collected the signatures of 31,000 American scientists, 9,000 of us with PhDs, demonstrated that the claims of overwhelming support are completely bogus. Support among scientists who earn their living from climate hysteria is probably that high but not among those with similar training who do not.
A study of the professional members of the American Meteorological Society (Stenhouse, et al., BAMS 2013) showed support at about 50%, depending on the question asked. A recent study by Legates et al showed support for the most extreme positions that CO2 is causing everything and we are headed for catastrophe is less than 1%.
Temperatures have flat-lined in all the satellite and ground based data sets for an average of 18 years.
Using the actual data that goes into the forecast models used for the 7 day forecasts you see on TV and the internet, we find the global anomaly was a mere +0.07C in November and for the year to date a measly +0.11C, far short of the +0.68C warmest ever anomaly that NOAA claimed last month. One modeler told me “It was obvious to me since about April that NOAA had decided that 2014 was going to be the hottest year ever. The White House needed this for their political objectives.” It appears Gruber’s ideas have legs.
Joseph D’Aleo, December 2014
Politics and Alarmism have No Place in Climate Science but LongQ's Thread is Safe as Scientist tells Folland and Pachauri to Fulks Off
When Professor Chris Folland of the British Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research said: “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models,” he was being exceedingly honest about the way alarmists view science.
Because of the subsequent uproar, he is now willing to admit some role for robust scientific data. But he still seems unable to clearly separate storytelling and computer simulations from real science. He should know that if it is not anchored in logic and evidence, it is not science. Non-scientists may find this difficult to understand, because they have been fed a steady diet of climate alarmism from the media. Tall tales, anchored in “consensus” (politics) and “belief” (religion), are not science.
Appropriate scientific education is also lacking among prominent alarmists such as Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and Dr. Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences. Railroad and electrical engineers should be able to understand this topic, but these two certainly do not.
Past presidents of the NAS who were genuine scientists, such as Dr. Philip Handler, had a better understanding: “Scientists best serve public policy by living within the ethics of science, not those of politics. If the scientific community will not unfrock the charlatans, the public will not discern the difference - science and the nation will suffer.”
What about Folland? It turns out that he has only a bachelor’s degree in physics, hardly enough education to be a real professor. Yet he has won many awards for adhering to the paradigm. Could he be correct that climate simulations actually work? A report by alarmists in the Proceedings of the NAS (Santer 2012) contained the striking admission that their models are high by a factor of two in predicting the global temperature trend. Of course, that admission was buried where no one saw it. Another critique by climatologist Dr. John Christy showed that the models are wrong by a factor of 3.5 in the tropical mid-troposphere where there is supposed to be a “hotspot” caused by carbon dioxide warming. Robust satellite and radiosonde data show no hotspot.
What about the “unusual warming recently” claimed by President Barack Obama’s National Climate Assessment 2014? The only thing unusual has been the lack of global warming for more than 15 years. The Arctic did warm more than any other region after 1975, the tropics only slightly and the Antarctic not at all. But the Arctic also warmed significantly after 1900, to a peak around 1940 that was warmer than today. Surprise! Our climate is cyclical over decades! That’s an ocean effect, not a CO2 effect.
With climate models that do not work, with a missing hotspot, and no net global warming in a long while, the government’s scientific case for alarm strikes out. The San Francisco Examiner had it right in 1888: “There is no joy in Mudville, mighty Casey has struck out.”
Gordon J Fulks PhD holds a doctorate in physics from the University of Chicago Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research
now prepare for a new scarephrase...it's called weather bomb!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2865214/Fo...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2865214/Fo...
AreOut said:
now prepare for a new scarephrase...it's called weather bomb!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2865214/Fo...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2865214/Fo...
Climate explosions, omigawd, buy Damart and candles and a thick tinfoil hat!
Surprise, Surprise...China Rejects Emissions Pledge Review
China has rejected the scrutiny of efforts to limit carbon emissions, a key tool that the US says is necessary as more than 190 countries work to come up with a new deal to fight climate change. Chinese negotiators sought to delete provisions in a draft text that would have paved the way for other countries and non-governmental organisations to submit questions about its carbon-reduction plans, according to environmental groups that are official observers to the talks.
South China Morning Post, 08 December 2014
Green Blob's Annual Ritual Hits Rift Over Pledges and Climate $Trillions
Dr Benny Peiser, of the climate-sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation described the summit as the “green blob’s annual ritual” and “an expensive form of mass tourism, never mind the carbon footprint. More importantly, the ritual gathering isn’t going to overcome the underlying deadlock,” he said. “The developing world will ask for a high price which will sink the deal in the USA”. He said he believed any deal would not be legally-binding and that this would lead the EU to renegue on its own carbon-cutting pledges. “In short, the deal that is now in the making won’t slow CO2 emissions and won’t bind any nation. But it will be sold as a breakthrough – as all agreements have been sold in the past,” he said.
Emily Gosden, The Sunday Telegraph, 07 December 2014
China has rejected the scrutiny of efforts to limit carbon emissions, a key tool that the US says is necessary as more than 190 countries work to come up with a new deal to fight climate change. Chinese negotiators sought to delete provisions in a draft text that would have paved the way for other countries and non-governmental organisations to submit questions about its carbon-reduction plans, according to environmental groups that are official observers to the talks.
South China Morning Post, 08 December 2014
Green Blob's Annual Ritual Hits Rift Over Pledges and Climate $Trillions
Dr Benny Peiser, of the climate-sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation described the summit as the “green blob’s annual ritual” and “an expensive form of mass tourism, never mind the carbon footprint. More importantly, the ritual gathering isn’t going to overcome the underlying deadlock,” he said. “The developing world will ask for a high price which will sink the deal in the USA”. He said he believed any deal would not be legally-binding and that this would lead the EU to renegue on its own carbon-cutting pledges. “In short, the deal that is now in the making won’t slow CO2 emissions and won’t bind any nation. But it will be sold as a breakthrough – as all agreements have been sold in the past,” he said.
Emily Gosden, The Sunday Telegraph, 07 December 2014
king idiots....turbobloke said:
AreOut said:
now prepare for a new scarephrase...it's called weather bomb!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2865214/Fo...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2865214/Fo...
Climate explosions, omigawd, buy Damart and candles and a thick tinfoil hat!
The CFACT people have produced a Climate A-Z (pdf) and while I haven't checked it out yet the provenance means it should at least be more palatable than an IPCC SPM.
https://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/C...
https://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/C...
The political blog Climate Depot has coverage of the satellite dataset 'pause' now at 18 years 2 months and where 2014 might just make 6th warmist (pun intended).
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/12/04/duelling-da...
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/12/04/duelling-da...
turbobloke said:
It is true that the temperature records compiled by the avid warmists of the Met Office and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (the one formerly run by climate activist James Hansen) have managed to show this year squeaking just ahead of 2010 as “the hottest year since records began”.
Named after Goddard the famous martian canal spotter; presumably they apply similar levels of critical thinking to all their other activities?Why 2014 isn't the hottest year since ever, or even over slightly shorter timescales 
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/10/why-2014-wont-...
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/10/why-2014-wont-...
Just in case anyone actually reads the Spencer article 
there's one comment that appears to have gone unanswered, though there are a lot of responses and I may have missed one.
DavidA says:
October 23, 2014 at 12:25 PM
“Almost always from the sun.”
"How. It’s not from an increase in solar irradiance"
Yet another offering which either unwittingly or deliberately omits solar eruptivity, the more marked solar forcing, and also conveniently forgets - or doesn't know about - what are now being called Top-Down effects including the far greater variation in solar UV. This relatively new Top-Down thinking has been mentioned in PH climate threads for about ten years under the category 'basic science'.
Still, life simply must be simpler behind blinkers.
there's one comment that appears to have gone unanswered, though there are a lot of responses and I may have missed one.DavidA says:
October 23, 2014 at 12:25 PM
“Almost always from the sun.”
"How. It’s not from an increase in solar irradiance"
Yet another offering which either unwittingly or deliberately omits solar eruptivity, the more marked solar forcing, and also conveniently forgets - or doesn't know about - what are now being called Top-Down effects including the far greater variation in solar UV. This relatively new Top-Down thinking has been mentioned in PH climate threads for about ten years under the category 'basic science'.
Still, life simply must be simpler
behind blinkers.
I forget now ... hidetheelephants said:
turbobloke said:
It is true that the temperature records compiled by the avid warmists of the Met Office and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (the one formerly run by climate activist James Hansen) have managed to show this year squeaking just ahead of 2010 as “the hottest year since records began”.
Named after Goddard the famous martian canal spotter; presumably they apply similar levels of critical thinking to all their other activities?Beati Dogu said:
hidetheelephants said:
turbobloke said:
It is true that the temperature records compiled by the avid warmists of the Met Office and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (the one formerly run by climate activist James Hansen) have managed to show this year squeaking just ahead of 2010 as “the hottest year since records began”.
Named after Goddard the famous martian canal spotter; presumably they apply similar levels of critical thinking to all their other activities?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff