Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen

They don’t have the backbone to even
comment on the hacked emails regarding
the global warming ??? If they were so
sure they were right, they would lay
everything out. Instead they pretend
it did not even happen. The arrogance
of this crowd is unbelievable. So
much for truth and transparency.

Posted by: Jenny | Nov 25, 2009 1:15:26 PM
_______________________________
Where are you cutting and pasting from Jenny?

Please Mr. President just STOP! Do you have to tamper with everything. Is it your goal to paralyze the U.S. while China and India continue to not be on board with this and their economy grows?

“What am I going to do, side with the couple of naysayers out there or the 2,500 scientists. I’m sticking with the 2,500 scientists. These people have been studying this issue for a very very long time and agree that the problem is real.”
_________________________________
The basic conclusions of Global Warming have been endorsed by more than 40 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.

“Where are you cutting and pasting from Jenny?”
Its from Inhofe’s EPW press release blog.
Jenny is literally posting right wing talking points.

“Tierra – It’s from the U.S. Senate Committee of Environmental and Public Works dated 3/16/09.”
Actually its Inhofe’s blog for that committee.
But I see you want to conceal that since he is regarded as an anti science luddite.

The basic conclusions of Global Warming have been endorsed by more than 40 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.
Posted by: tierra | Nov 25, 2009 1:30:32 PM
Yes they believe in it so much they have to delete their email for fear of the Freedom of Information Act.

Today’s RCP average–the one that includes polls of adults, as well as those of actual voters–has dropped below 50%, as Obamalaise continues at a rollicking pace.

Atta girl Tiara, go down swinging. The Global Warming hoax has been exposed. You should feel angry that you were fooled but instead you defend those who fooled you.

Actually it is the vast consensus of every major scientific body on the planet – opposed by a few oil, coal and auto industry pimps, same as the tobacco industry pimp scientists for years published reports saying smoking was good for you.
Posted by: tierra | Nov 25, 2009 1:54:29 PM
Right like they are not being pimped for goverment grant money. At least be honest about it. It is a money grab and it’s going to do nothing to improve the environment only weaken our economy while India and China keep growing.

“Right wing and Independent talking points, Ryan”
ROFLMAO!
Keep the myth alive!

Why bother listening to the world’s major scientific bodies when we have right wing bloggers who know the truth already?

Ok let’s take the scientific worlds advice and all start riding bicycles.
‘Un-American’ | Nov 25, 2009 2:09:34 PM
My vote for best laugh of the day, since if it weren’t for the scientific world’s advice (and method) we wouldn’t HAVE bicycles (or trains, planes and automobiles) to ride…

Global warming is a hoax perpetrated by redistributionists.
Van Jones ring any bells?
The conspiracy between government kleptocrats and faux scientists has been exposed. One of them is an Obama Czar.
Nice gloss over of the the entire Climate Gate story abc.

Save your breath Obama.
That cheerleader, Mann, has now been proven to be a lying hack who manipulates data to fit his agenda. He won’t release data that proves his junk science wrong.
Hear that? That is the global warming trainwreck coming to an end.
Anybody confirm that Al Gore was seen buying a rope?

This big-eared moron insists even after global warming has been exposed as a hoax?????????
How DARE HE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Honestly, how stupid do they think we are???
They have told us for YEARS why they planned this crisis… and it can be summed up in the words of Richard Haass:
“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…. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”
– The First Global Revolution The Vacuum (1991) published by the Club of Rome.

“Anti-science? How could he be anti-science when he cites credible scientists who debunk man-made global warming?”
Sen Inhofe: People complain that we are buying — importing from the Middle East — oil and gas. And then they find out that we have it all right here. We don’t have to do that. If their argument there is “Well, we don’t want to use oil and gas because we think it pollutes” — which it doesn’t — but if that’s their argument, then why are we willing to import it from Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Middle East?”
The right wing…stuck on stupid.

This big-eared moron
Posted by: NH | Nov 25, 2009 2:38:14 PM
_________________________________
More name calling and insult as intelligent political comment . . .

Try the liberal UK Telegraph for more information on climate gate.
The coverage here is a joke and an offense to journalism.
This is the biggest scientific fraud scandal since Galileo and the Catholic Church.
No number of paid trolls can change that on news boards.

“Right like they are not being pimped for goverment grant money.”
Except government grant money does not demand a certain result
Oil and gas company money does.

jhw539–”Well, no they haven’t. You seem to think the actions of a group of 30 academics (including grad students) is exactly identical to the thousands of scientists working on this issue. A group who did not have any impact on the main bodies of data (ice core gas analysis, satellite packages, buoy studies, current mapping, radiosonde studies, solar radiation measurements, cloud formation experiments, etc.). ”
Those academics which you now minimize laid the foundation for most of the research that was used to come to the global warming “consensus”..
Ice core analysis, and solar satelite studies according to prominent British sientists indicate an opposition tot he findings that support global warming. So does the unexplained cooling period that we have recorded over the last decade that has erased 2/3rds of the 0.74 degree celsius rise in mean earth temps recorded over the past 50 years (which is what the global warming model was based on). You may not be, but I am old enough to remember the early 1970s when these same “consensus scientists” were trying their best to convince us the next ice age was inevitable. That’s right – in 1973 we were facing possible extinction fromthe affects of “Global Cooling” because increases in CO2 were depleting the warming effects of the ozone layer.
Here’s a real kicker for you.. CO2 accounts for less than 2 percent of the total greenhouse gasses in our environment. Those gases composed mostly of existing water vapor, total 30% of the entire atmosphere. Over the past 100 years, CO2 (which also comes from a litany of things including exhalation from the entire animal kingdom, animal flatulence, and as a by product of decomposition of plant matter)has increased less than 1/2 of 1% and changed the makeup of the total greenhouse gases by less than 2%. The only way to significantly alter the level of greenhouse gases by reducing total CO2 emissions would entail, not only the complete elimination of all fossil fuel use, but also the elimination of all non necessay animal life and the development of a waste system that absorbs CO2 formed as a byproduct af all plant and animal decomposition. In short, it can’t be done as long as humans exist. Even if it could be accomplished, many scientists believe that any initial warming would decrease the total percentage of water vapor which would bring the levels back down to normal over a period of time.
This is junk science at its most preposterous and leads to only one end.. providing world leaders with a convenient excuse to control more of our lives.

On the subject of Britain, this is what her leaders are doing – going shooting with Ghaddafi’s son:
Maybe that’s what Obama should discuss with Brown.

What the hacked emails imply is trickery and deceit on the whole AGW community, so we need a serious debate on this issue involving both believers and non-believers. The fact that the temperature has not gone up in 10 years hurts the AGW case. The AGW people imply it is Big Oil fueling the non believers disbelief. The non-AGW group says that too many scientists and Big Business people are making big money promoting their AGW cause. If the Cap and Trade legislation goes through it will really hurt our economy and pocket books through the results of higher taxes, so, I really want to know that this is absolutely necessary before I will buy into it. I say, “Green yes; Gangrene No!”

U tube has a great parody:
“Hide The Decline – Climategate”

For all of you dumBO worshipers your president is about to sign away our sovereignty in Copenhagen. If he does sign the agreement as it is currently written he will be subject to impeachment. Just thought you would want to know.

That is an incorrect statement – not sure where you got your “facts” from, but they are wrong.”
The 20 hottest years on record in order of which was hottest, courtesy wiki
2005
1998
2002
2003
2004
2001
2008
1997
1995
1999
1990
2000
1991
1988
1987
1994
1983
1996

For the first time in the White House, Gallup finds Obama’s support among white Americans has fallen below 40 percent: he’s at 39 percent among whites.

the first time in the White House, Gallup finds that Obama’s support is below 50 percent with every income group except those making less than $2,000 a month. He’s at 49 percent among those making $2,000 to $4,999 a month; 44 percent among those making $5,000 to $7,499 a month; and 48 percent among those making $7,500 and more a month.

I believe the science behind Global Warming has been collected in such a way to support a specific outcome. I believe in Some form of Global Warming, but I believe it is more related to natural climate changes the earth has always went through. Has man had an effect? Yes but not to the extent that some have claimed. Fact is the information has been shown to be at the very least suspect if not false. But that is not my problem! My problem is this. Obama is probably going to agree to standards that not all countries will follow and will accomplish nothing more than putting the United States at a greater disadvantage when it comes to price. These new standards may create new “green” jobs but for companies that are not in compliance it is another expense. And when expense goes up you counter act that one of two ways raise your costs, or reduce cost somewhere else. And the easiest expense to control is payroll. We really need to think about this is this something we can afford at this time? I do not think so. But that is just my opinion.

For the first time in the White House, Obama is below 50 percent with everyone who goes to church. This despite the fact that he prays to Jesus every night of his life.

Study of the orbital mechanics of the solar system in the 1970s led Russians to believe the Earth was about to cool and we should prepare quickly because it will be catastrophic. Their arguments were lost in the rush to warming group-think in the 1990s, but the arguments for impending cold are well founded and still believed by many good scientists. As the sun goes even quieter and January, 2008 saw the greatest year to year temperature drop ever (128 years of NASA GISS data) and thru the end of 2008 remains relatively cool, it is clear cooling needs to be considered as a very plausible future. This is highlighted by 2 papers published in March 2008. Scafetta and West showed that up to 69% of observed warming is from the sun and remind us that the sun is projected to cool and Ramanathan and Carmichael show that soot has 60% of the warming power of CO2. Both papers state that these factors are underappreciated by IPCC. The soot may well explain the Arctic melting, as it has recently for Asian glaciers. Many scientists believe the temperature changes are more dependent on the sun than CO2, similar to the relationship in your home with your furnace. With the Sun’s face nearly quiet, the monthly patterns over the last 12 months are most similar to those of 1797 preceding the Dalton Minimum of 1798-1823 during the little ice age (Timo Niroma).

The southern hemisphere has been cooling over the last 10 years, just about as much as the north has been warming. There is no proof within observational data of warming outside of natural variation. When 3 of the highest 5 or 6 years in the temperature record (since 1890) occurred over 70 years ago and 1900 was warmer than recent years in the USA (where the best data are), we are nowhere near statistical proof, nor even evidence of warming. Modelers are still unable to include important variables and no one is able to predict the future. At least Hadley Centre have tried (below). While CO2 continues to rise, the temperature has stabilized at a warm level, but not unusually so. Which way will it go? The world seems to be betting on warming. However, the probability of cooling may be equally valid and we must be prepared for both. Cooling presents the real danger. Things that go up and down only go so high. It has always been this way.

“Wikipedia is not peer-reviewed.”
The wiki article has references one can review.
So let’s recap what the right wing is fighting for.
They fight for insurance company profits.
They fight for oil company profits.
They fight for defense company profits.

“Wikipedia is not peer-reviewed.”
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Nov 25, 2009 3:56:37 PM
Yes, it is…by the average guy in his pajamas trolling the internet. Experts!
LOL

“Since the whole argument swings on a degree or two change over the next 100 years, we really don’t even have data that is trustworthy enough to make a projection.”
Posted by: Joe White | Nov 25, 2009 4:05:06 PM
Especially when we are talking passing regulations which will strangle economic growth for decades.

Ryan,
What makes you think you can say what they are for?
According to their website:
What we believe:
We’re fortunate to live in America -
The Republican Party believes that the United States has been blessed with a unique set of individual rights and freedoms available to all.
You can be what you are, and become what you are capable of becoming -
The Republican Party is inspired by the power and ingenuity of the individual to succeed through hard work, family support and self-discipline.
Helping those around you is worthwhile -
The Republican Party believes in the value of voluntary giving and community support over taxation and forced redistribution.
Small government is a better government for the people -
The Republican Party, like our nation’s founders, believes that government must be limited so that it never becomes powerful enough to infringe on the rights of individuals.
You know what to do with your money better than government -
The Republican Party supports low taxes because individuals know best how to make their own economic and charitable choices.
Free markets keep people free -
The Republican Party is supportive of logical business regulations that encourage entrepreneurs to start more businesses so more individuals can enjoy the satisfaction and fruits of self-made success.
Our Armed Forces defend and protect our democracy -
The Republican Party is committed to preserving our national strength while working to extend peace, freedom and human rights throughout the world.
The Republican Party is guided by these principles as it develops solutions to the challenges facing America.
Dude, I’m an independent voter. Don’t paint with such a broad brush. At least learn something valid about the opposition, otherwise, you will sound like a little self righteous, whiney, ignoramous.

Ryan C -”So let’s recap what the right wing is fighting for.
They fight for insurance company profits.
They fight for oil company profits.
They fight for defense company profits.
– Now lets recap what the left wing is fighting for -
They are fighting for government control of our banks, investment firms and auto industries.
They are fighting for union control of the manufacturing, health, and educational sectors
They are fighting for control of 1/6th of the economy through the healthcare system and for control of our rights when it comes to personal health decisions through a public option.
They are fighting for control of our energy useage, choice in automobiles, livestock levels, and for control of our manufacturing methodology based on their conclusion that we are harming the environment by our very existance.
They are fighting to redistribute the wealth of this nation by taking it away from those who have legally earned it and giving to those who have not in order to “equalize society”.
They are fighting to be the last decision in what is “reasonable” profit for a free people instead of allowing profit to be dictated by what the market will bear.
They are fighting to change the constitutional make-up of this country from a free republic to a socialist state through heavy government regulation and the dependancy of the citizen class upon the government who will no longer serve them, but will serve OVER them.
You gave three examples… I could go on all day if I chose to break it down.. Trust me, you don’t want to engage in the argument of right vs left.. you will lose – it won’t even be close.

Ed Taylor | Nov 25, 2009 4:26:05 PM : Thank you for your insight. The left attacks the right, the right would like a chance to respond and the left in return refuses to talk. I wonder what the left is so afraid of ? If they want all this agenda pushed so fast with out taking public opinion in to account what are they hiding?

“Ryan C: I assume you work correct? What do you think allows you to get a pay check, a raise, maybe a christmas bonus? That is right PROFIT ! When did profit become such a bad thing?”
If my company profited by ripping people off and denying them health insurance or stealing the natural resources of other countries, I would quit.
Profits over people, ladies and gentlemen I present the right wing.

For years the tobacco industry paid scientists to fight the growing body of research linking tobacco smoking with health consequences. But the real research was overwhelming.
Same thing happening today – the real research is overwhelming but the oil industry is paying scientists to try to discredit the legitimate research.
Is it surprising the right wing would support such paid nonsense? I suppose not . . . George Bush was from a very rich oil family after all. Guess what his vested interest might be?
And the little right wing ducklings waddle along clucking out the spoon-fed talking points.

“I did not say that there were no hot years in the last decade, I said that the average (hot years and cold years) from the last decade when coupled with the previous 50 years reduced the average increase in earths median temperature.”
Nailed in a lie the right wing goal post moving begins.

“For starters, the article was designed to look just like an article from the National Academy of Sciences, a reputable peer-reviewed journal. However, the article was created by three skeptics (deniers) and, obviously, was NOT peer-reviewed. It stirred quite a controversy and prompted NAS to publish a statement saying that it had nothing to do with the article.”
Sounds like the coal industry PR flacks and their scam forging letters and support.
The lesson as always? Right wingers lie.

“Ryan that is an empty statement that is totally inaccurate who is ripping off people?”
Have you been living in a cave?
You can google health insurance rip off and start there.
“Be careful your opinions may not hold up well against facts and logic.”
Right wing logic is an oxymoron.
“Again you have no opinion, just repeating the DNC party line.”
ROFLMAO!
I like to think of myself as quite a bit more liberal than the DNC.

Same thing happening today – the real research is overwhelming but the oil industry is paying scientists to try to discredit the legitimate research.”
That has been going on for ome time now.
Guardian 2007: “Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world’s largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.”

Ryan C –”Guardian 2007: “Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world’s largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.” —-
One of your two examples of big oil attack on global warming. Funny though, I don’t see in either one of these examples any indication that big oil was soliciting FRAUDULENT information on the subject. Rather they were protecting their interests by soliciting evidence to debunk something that would damage their profits.
If you were taken to court and someone testified that you had committed a crime, would you be guilty of wrongdoing by soliciting someone who to appear in order to testify on your behalf as to what the truth was??
Because that is exactly what you are accusing big oil of doing.. in affect saying that someone is blaming global warming on big oil and they have no right to solicit anyone to dispute that claim. I just love how liberals fail to see an unfair fight when THEY have the upper hand.

UK Telegraph:
“If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka  CRU) and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet. “

“One of your two examples of big oil attack on global warming. Funny though, I don’t see in either one of these examples any indication that big oil was soliciting FRAUDULENT information on the subject.”
Do you think AEI was more concerned about the accuracy of an article or whether it attacked the IPCC report?
AEI LOVES to falsify data, see John Lott and the Bell Curve as a prime examples.

“Because that is exactly what you are accusing big oil of doing.. in affect saying that someone is blaming global warming on big oil and they have no right to solicit anyone to dispute that claim. I just love how liberals fail to see an unfair fight when THEY have the upper hand.”
The poor poor Oil company….
I guess in a perverse way the right wing sees giant and powerful industries like the Oil industry as the “little guy” that needs to be protected.
The American people? Not so much.

More from The Telegraph:
“When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:
Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.”
This is all so much fun!
Heck, and I was actually looking forward to having all those fertile farmlands in Greenland once again.

The defenders of the liberal socialist government are still at it! LOL! Not much you can do to stop the train now…

Next comes the litigation against the conspirators. There will documents subpoenaed. There will be the fraudulent scientists being cross-examined under oath.
That will be a wonderful circus to gloat over, but the really valuable goal has now already been accomplished with the exposure of the fraud: all the starry-eyed schemes for transferring trillions of dollars to underdeveloped countries, and for coercively restraining our economic output, have just gone up in smoke.
This one’s over. We won. (well, it’s over except for the litigation. That will be the dessert.)

The defenders of the liberal socialist government are still at it! LOL! Not much you can do to stop the train now…
______________________________________
Is that an energy-efficient rapid transit train? Probably not with the dinosaur crowd crowing.

Gotta go folks, its been fun butting heads.. Happy thanksgiving and God Bless America.
To the folks like Tierra and Ryan C. Just one last note: I served in the military to protect the liberies of ALL Americans. I may not agree with anything that you two or others like you say, but I have and would again, defend til my death your right to say it.
Considering your leftward leanings.. I ask you this – answer it only to yourself. Were it your choice, would rather I speak, or be silenced?
the difference is what separates us from the rest of the world.

fascist, can you leave a comment on my blog? would like to get in touch.

“Imagine that, any one who disagrees with Ryan MUST be a right wing climate change denier…”
Take a look at the guy’s articles.

“Next comes the litigation against the conspirators. There will documents subpoenaed. There will be the fraudulent scientists being cross-examined under oath.”
ROFLMAO!
Fascist has birther like fantasies.

Quote:
would actually just go back to how can pumping an important greenhouse gas into the atmosphere NOT alter temp. Why wouldn’t it? And if that will be detrimental to our children, and we need alternate energy anyway, and clean air and water, why not do something now if we can?
END QUOTE——–
You have not studied scientific method have you? Have you taken any advanced science labs? You can’t prove why something “wouldn’t” cause something…that’s complete babble.

teirra:”Bad science and attempts to repress legitimate science.”
You must realize you’re describing exactly Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Tim Osbourne and the rest of the CRU clue. There’s evidence if you care to read it. Jones has already admitted the material is genuine. It makes no sense to deny they corrupted the science itself and the peer review process, as well as destroyed material requested under the Freedom of Information Act. If you believe these gentlemen represent “real science” then I’m afraid you’re sadly mistaken.

Alyson:”Eat well, let me know if you know the perfect wine for Thanksgiving dinner and pass the sweet potatoes.”
My favorite wine is whatever makes you smile. :-) With turkey you can go with either white or red. I’ll go with a crisp pinot grigio, but to each his own I always say.
Enjoy!

Fearless Leader can go to Copenhagen to work on the so-called “climate disaster”? This to go along with the other great emergency called “government run health care”?
_______________________________
Two of the major issues he campaigned on . .. I would not expect the President to retreat on Global Warming because some right wing bloggers think they’re scientific research experts on Global Warming. Like any sane person, I would listen to the legitimate scientic research community.
Just being able to say “hacked emails” does not change the huge body of research that confirms both greenhouse gases and global warming. This is science folks, not Howdy Doody.

Global warming gives us a great opportunity to re-invent our economy – and that is what we must do. Green technology is an emerging multi-trillion dollar industry. And the money we invest now will reap fantastic dividends in the future.
I should know because I am a nickel and dimes investor, and I am looking for green tech stock with a future. In addition my pension fund, Cal-STRS has invested part if its portfolio in green tech – and so I’ve got vested interests in green tech.
I’d suggest everyone look around at the rest of the world. To be sure, China is a leading producer of greenhouse gases, BUT they are investing far more in green technology than we are. In fact, I have invested money in a Chinese solar company which is making a very nice profit. A recent stimulus project in Texas actually bought windmills from a Chinese company rather than an American company, simply because our wind tech industry is so under-developed.
The Europeans are also forging ahead in alternative energy. And even some of the oil shiekdoms in the Persion Gulf have recognized that the petro party is over and they too are investing in solar energy.
Al Gore laid out a series of options in our Choice. I might add that by following Gore’s recommendations – we’ll not only save the planet but bring jobs and prosperity back into the US – provided we invest in the green tech here. (And yes, I am on the look-out for American green tech companies too.)
I am glad Obama has decided to go to Copenhagen. We cannot lead the world, unless we lead in green tech. Although I do not believe a magical agreement will be reached in Copenhagen, I am hopeful that more international consensus can be reached. And my stock portfolio will be extremely grateful, too.

It’s best to always search reports on climate using the word data.
Hmmm – no mention by ABC’s lib cryin-wolf that ALL HIDDEN Data be relinquished before the idiots erase it? Re:
By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: November 20th, 2009
Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?
Hopefully there goes a new Kyoto treaty and I would bet is the demise of “Cap & Trade” – err Cap & Tax – THANK GOD
Shell, Exxon / Mobil and others who were giving in to the lies can now start backing off from cajoling with idiots in the liberal universities. There can be improvements to better use of energy – especially nuclear – for many other reasons.
See article – there have been many mainstream media excuses that it was just some of the idiots’ emails taken out of context – ya Right – its about making sure of more funding for their projects so they aren’t the ones unemployed. Junk science surely keeps young people from entering the real science field – so please forward the article by James Delingpole to others.
I had known about the late John Daly ( http://www.john-daly.com ) for years – he is laughing with the angels. See the reference by the rotten-to-the-ice-core idiots in the article who celebrated his death.

In the world of politics long term goals are not worth the paper they are written on. The question is what action Obama and Congress are willing to take here and now, not what they wish for Christmas in 2050.

“Global Warming is a fact; like Mercury in vaccines causes autism,like silicone breast implants cause lupus,like a macrobiotic diet cures cancer, like it was inevitable that AIDS would spread explosively in the heterosexual population”
AIDS did explode among the heterosexual population in Africa where the use of condoms was not nearly as encouraged as it was here and in Europe.

“NONE of those was examples you site were or are supported by more than 40 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.”
Well, I suppose if you also bought “Hope and Change” and Pelosi’s promise of the “most ethical Congress in history”, you’d buy the AGW fraud as well.
Stockholm Syndrome is alive and well!

So moonbats repeat after me, there was no warming in the last 10 years. There was no warming in the last 10 years. There was no warming in the last 10 years. Maybe if you say it enough, some basic facts will penetrate your thick skulls.

Posted by: Jenn | Nov 25, 2009 8:13:01 PM
Jenn when you buy into the opinions of some unqualified right wing bloggers over the opinions of 40 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries – it is you that is suffering from the Stockholm Syndrome delirium.
Think about it.

Posted by: jonny | Nov 25, 2009 8:41:11 PM
Learn to read first, you’ll have a better chance of comprehension. Here, try it slowly this time . . . I’ve emphasized some words to make it easier for you … .
“Jenn when you buy into the opinions of some unqualified right wing bloggers over the opinions of 40 SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES AND ACADEMIES OF SCIENCE, INCLUDING ALL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCE OF THE MAJOR INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES – it is you that is suffering from the Stockholm Syndrome delirium.
“Think about it.”

“Learn to read first, you’ll have a better chance of comprehension. Here, try it slowly this time . . . I’ve emphasized some words to make it easier for you … .”
Don’t worry I read fine. It’s the moonbat crowd that fail to understand basic concepts. Like when the climate hasn’t changed in 10 years, it’s like, you know, nothing is happening to the climate. Hope that is easier for you. Next we will have a lesson on how to move this basic concept to one using numbers.

Global warming gives us a great opportunity to re-invent our economy – and that is what we must do. Green technology is an emerging multi-trillion dollar industry. And the money we invest now will reap fantastic dividends in the future…
Posted by: William Joseph Miller | Nov 25, 2009 7:04:48 PM
Great post. I wish all Americans were as forward thinking as you. Good luck with your forward-thinking investments.
_____________________________________
Absolutely! Fortunately there have been literally millions of very talented people in countries throughout the world working on these things for years.

I’ve lived nearby the Pacific Ocean for 11 years now. I visit it frequently. I haven’t noticed any rising of the the sea level, despite the alarmist claims over the same 10 years. Just a little good news for you…

We’re supposed to trust Browner? She was listed on Socialist International’s “Commission for a Sustainable Society” that called for global governance and global justice. When this broke last year (I didn’t see anything in ABC), they updated their web site by removing most of the information they had on her.
It is imperative that we DO NOT sign on to any Copenhagen treaty as well as not implementing cap-and-trade.

It seems Obama is extending his globe trotting to get out of Washington – seems the global warming AKA HEAT is on him there and overseas he can still get some unabashed adoration from the world community as the US media, kicking and screaming, have finally begun to realize that style is no substitute for substance.

I note cara claims CO2 “stays in the atmosphere for centuries”-that is crap.pure and simple.You have nothing to back up that statement.Where does CO2 go? Ever been to Dover? Ever picked up a seashell?Ever used a blackboard? Or maybe you are unfamiliar with plankton.”My explanation as to why a 35% increase in the second most important greenhouse gas would not affect global temperature as theort predicts is simple. The theory is wrong. And this is the crux of the problem with the East Anglia e-mails: the theory must be right,so make the data fit the theory.Reject data that contradicts the theory.Ostracize those who don’t agree with the theory.That isn’t science-it is religion.It doesn’t matter if 40 scientific organizations say a theory is correct if it isn’t.Whether you like it or not, there has never been published in any peer-reviewsd journal conclusive experimental proof that any observed climatic change in the last 100 years cannot be attributed to natural climatic fluctuations.

It doesn’t matter if 40 scientific organizations say a theory is correct if it isn’t
_________________________________
And it also doesn’t matter if you say a theory is incorrect – that does not make it incorrect.
I will trust the measured assessment of 40 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.
Sorry, you’re a nice guy and all, but you are just some dude on a blog shooting his mouth off. You are not for instance . .. the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.

Interesting that ABC doesnt mention the hackers exposing fake global warming

Browner: “I’m sticking with the 2,500 scientists”
1610 all over again. I’m sure Galileo would be proud of him repeating history.

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.”
- Russell
“Never mistake knowledge for wisdom. One helps you make a living; the other helps you maka a life.”
- Carey

Cannot anyone in our Government understand that its part only of any global warming threat is preparation to protect its citizens. They all have some idea that they (us) can do something to alter mother nature. These wealthy, elitist, narcissistic, power hungry, career politicians are not thinking of protecting the citizens they represent. If in fact they were they would not be limiting the energy producing assets we currently have but rather exploiting the less expensive and most productive forms (coal and nuclear) to keep our energy costs lower. If our representatives were truly concerned about energy costs to their constituents they would eliminate rules, regulations and taxes they have imposed on these products. Al Gore and his like in John Kerry and Barb Boxer (all liberals) believe that we must take a offensive approach against mother nature’s inevitability. These self serving pampas individuals actually think that our citizens sacrifice will win a war against the inevitability of any change mother nature has in store. Their offensive approach is an attack by regulation and taxation on the citizens it is their duty to keep safe.
When a mountain is about to erupt we attempt to escape its fury. When an earthquake causes a tsunami we head for higher ground. As a hurricane approaches we head in land. We have regional alert systems to warn us to take cover from tornadoes. So tell me Mr. Kerry what is the defensive plan to protect your constituency in the face of this impending doom? I hope that any plan we have to pay for is based on the 4.5% of the world population the United States represents because that is what we are paying you to be concerned about.
Mr. Kerry has testified that our national security is at stake over global warming. If congress is truly concerned about national security then they should start small by closing our borders and using all means to find and eliminate the human threats we face BEFORE you take on mother nature.

Nephron: I note cara claims CO2 “stays in the atmosphere for centuries”-that is crap.pure and simple.You have nothing to back up that statement.Where does CO2 go? Ever been to Dover? Ever picked up a seashell?Ever used a blackboard? Or maybe you are unfamiliar with plankton.
___
According to scientists who research this type of thing, we know we’re emitting about 7 Gt of CO2 per year (about 6 Gt in fossil fuel burning, and 1 Gt from deforestation). Of that, 3.5 Gt appears to stay in the atmosphere. Until the industrial revolution, every gigatonne of carbon going into the atmosphere was balanced by one coming out. It appears humans have upset the balance. I’ll grant you that plankton has been busy. The biosphere is a major carbon sink and a carbon reservoir– the ocean and forests both take up carbon for photosynthesis. However, the biosphere is calibrated, if you will, for a carbon cycle that doesn’t involve massive emissions from stored carbon resources (fossil fuels). (hat tip, Grist and Grist Mill, some more great resources).
____
Reject data that contradicts the theory.Ostracize those who don’t agree with the theory..That isn’t science-it is religion.
___
I don’t agree with your sentiments when it comes to climate change but I can sympathize with them by extrapolating what I see from the free market crowd (and while I think the brouhaha over the hacked emails is exaggerated and somewhat misdirected, there is evidence that the dirty tactics of the deniers and skeptics are hurting the science, for sure–). IMO, the free market ilk have a religious belief in ‘the market’ to solve all problems (nevermind that pure free market capitalism and pure laissez faire capitalism doesn’t exist) As a result, they see climate change (health care reform, stimulus when a deflationary recession calls for it, etc.) as some sort of ‘socialist’ or ‘communist’ attack on ‘the market,’ and respond with religious fervor and no sense whatsoever. Same thing that you’re projecting onto those worried about the planet– No proof, no numbers, lots of ostracization, speculation and fanaticism– despite reality.
Anyway, off to cavort with family, friends and a feast.

Can’t wait for the “unprecendented” soaking Obama is going to give to taxpayers over the global cooling problem.
Thank god I have plenty of trees on my property to burn in the stove. We can not afford the elctric bill in the winter anymore.
With the dollar dropping to new lows daily and the treasury printing money at unprecedented rates, inflation is just around the corner.
This economy is going to be horrific in another two years. The last thing we need is to be shipping billions of citizen money around the world in yet another welfare scam.

cara,do you remember the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo?

nice try tierra to try to attack the messenger – a typical ploy from the left – and quite tiresome to listen to frankly.
Galileo went against the ‘expert’ consensus to explain that the earth was NOT the center of the universe. Skeptical scientists challenging the consensus on anthropogenic global warming are repeating history; unfortunately so is tierra and so many other consensus majority stubborn earth-is-flat defenders.
The fact is, for centuries rulers of nations have been looking for the magic scepter to rule over their masses with complete and total control. Dictators and tyrants have looked for, tried different techniques in the past and failed. For example, Emperor Hirohito of Japan during WWII had his country convinced that he was divine. He used this to swell the masses into believing anything that he said, including convincing all his women and children fighting to the last if all their military was
decimated. He used this absurd ploy to control the masses. This was his magic scepter of power.
Today, the leaders of nations are looking for something new to grip the masses with total and complete control – and they’ve found it in global warming. Nothing that hasn’t been attempted before in the past. Global warming is that very ‘magical scepter of power’ rulers have been searching for. It will go away just as the idea that the Emperor of Japan was divine.

On what planet does Al Gore = Galileo?
Uranus?
Cap n Trade is the biggest tax & redistribute to political cronies in the history of the world.
I am a true conservationist and make the liberal pick up thier trash when they litter.
I don’t need them mistaking by wallet for refuse that needs to be regulated any longer.
Al Gore should be tried under RICO, as should the CRU politcal hacks that invented Global Warming.
All done with taxpayer dollars folks.

“Quit clinging to an obsolete past where human pollution doesn’t affect the environment – those theories are washed up.”
Yes, man’s pollution does effect the environment–about five percent! The other ninety-five percent is COSMIC!
Forget about the Earth for a moment. ALL of the planets go through warming and cooling trends. When you can prove that human pollution affects the other planets’ warming and cooling trends THEN let’s talk about cap and trade. In the meantime, conservationism is fine–on a strickly voluntary basis. Ending our dependence on fossil fuels is fine–but let the free market control the conversion, not government regulation.

Ok the CBO says that it will cost the average panel $175.00 per year. Ok when have the ever had the numbers correct. Ok where does the money really go. We complain about the financial institutions Wall Street etc from ripping us off. Ok what do really get by paying this money in. Made up numbers that supposedly saves the planet. Over the years I have worked toward making my house more energy efficient. Ok well most of the solar panels and other equipment for cleaner energy will most likely if not already will be made in China. Ok amazingly all of a sudden China has announced that they are going to reduces there emissions. They know they are going to make a bundle on this. Oh and who else is already making a bundle on this and will make a lot more is Al Gore. Which he consumes a lot more energy than the average family. I am all for cleaner air etc.. But This is one big Rip Off.

Yup,
Complete denial of facts. They climate change believers can’t accept facts. Take a look at the emails, and learn a few things before posting more drivel.

Posted by: jonny | Nov 26, 2009 9:14:05 PM
Many people have looked at the emails – and they don’t even make a dent in the enormous body of research confirming both man-made greenhouse gases and global warming.
The creationists, oil industry shills and global warming deniers are pretending just saying ‘hacked emails’ somehow destroys decades of research – it doesn’t.

I urge people who are open minded and concerned about these issues to consider the following. Science is about intellectual honesty or it’s nothing at all.
Public trust in science is too valuable to squander. That is what has happened.
That is what these emails have done. It is not acceptable to fair minded people that these issues just be swept aside without evaluation. I know the cliamte change proponents are on the defensive, but wishing it will go away will not make it go away.

“In three separate instances over two weeks, Sean Hannity has baselessly asserted that “this is one of the coldest years on record” to claim that climate change is a “hoax” or not “real.” In fact, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), and Britain’s Met Office have stated that to date, 2009 is among the warmest years on record.”
Source: MediaMatters

Keep saying there is no dent. Lovely words with an empty meaning. Denial, denial , no response to the last 10 years data, no acknowledgement of the lying and deception.
Denial, thy name is denial.

Posted by: jonny | Nov 26, 2009 10:08:22 PM
Hey jonny, it’s not me that has to provide evidence to contradict the findings of more than 40 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries – it’s you . ..
And simply squeaking out ‘hacked emails’ over and over again does nothing to counteract those findings.

Check the last two paragraphs – the actual truth is any politician in Australia who opposes the ‘cap and trade’ can expect to be voted out of office.
——
“On Tuesday, Australia’s opposition reach an agreement with the government to pass the laws after winning major concessions, including more compensation for big emitters, coal mines and electricity generators.
“But opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull has since faced an open revolt, with up to half of his party opposed to the carbon trade plan.
**Opinion polls show Rudd would easily win an election with an increased majority, and Turnbull on Friday warned his party to support the laws or face a crushing electoral defeat.
“The vast majority of Australians want to see action on climate change,” Turnbull told Australian radio.”
Source: Reuters

Malcolm Turnbull has lead his party to division and the brink of electoral disaster. Not surprisingly:
MALCOLM Turnbull may have a deal with Kevin Rudd on an emissions trading scheme, but he’s sitting on a powder keg of Coalition frustration and anger that could even turn into a leadership spill at this morning’s partyroom meeting in Parliament House.
His only hope is to accept the fact that the leaked emails from Britain’s Climatic Research Unit confirm that the scientific basis for the theory of man-made warming has been corrupted and can no longer be relied upon – and especially not when the climate is doing the opposite of what was predicted.
The massive increases in utility bills as a result of earlier “carbon tax” legislation has caused some households in Oz to have to finance thier monthly electric bills. Many households saw increases of an average of 1200 (au)dollars annually. Consumers are in full revolt.

The e-mails prove once and for all what many thousands of scientists and the rest of us have always
known. GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX!!! They’ve been cooking their “research” to fit a political agenda. This is nothing more than a power grab by the United (Abomi)Nations to create a world governing body, even
Al Gore was on tape saying that. We need to call Congress and demand these liars get their funding cut. Any politician who voted for or supports cap-and
-trade needs to be voted out of office.

tierra:”What is required is to provide evidence to contradict the findings of more than 40 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries”
How long are you going to hand onto this “consensus” canard? These organizations certainly did NOT come up with THEIR OWN FINDINGS. They deferred to the climate crew, or CRU.
Let me ask you this: To what level did these 40 scientific societies have access to CRU and GISS raw data and code? None. Did a single one of them verify that CRU and GISS were actually programming their theories correctly? No. Or did they assume CRU and GISS were practicing sound science and feeding the IPCC correct information? Yes, why would they assume otherwise? It’s called group-think.
Your point about others being required to provide evidence that AGW theory is false is exactly how science does NOT work. When one propopes a theory it is up to the idividual to provide the burden of proof that the theory is sound. This is done through a completely transparent process of showing all of one’s work to anyone who cares to question it. For a recent example, this is how “cold fusion” was laughed out of the room because the results of a single research team could not be reproduced. What we have in climate science is a band of tightly knit groups, modifying or excluding data that doesn’t fit their theories and then stonewalling groups that request to see their raw, unmodified data and computer code that adjusts the data. Would you want to fly in a plane built under a similar process? Have your eyes operated on by a laser built with this process? Of course not. This isn’t science.

So according to ABC News, CLIMATEGATE is simply “a scandal in the British press,” huh. Actually, it is at least the biggest scientific scandal in recent decades, if not of all time. It is a scandal involving the worlds leading climate scientists (if we can still even call them “scientists.” Zealots and demogogues seem more appropriate)not the British press (very strange way to descibe it, illustrating a desperate attempt to downplay the whole sordid affair). And US climate scientists/zealots/demogogues are involved up to their eyeballs. All in all, pathetic attempt to rationalize and justify the Lamestream Media’refusal to cover yet another politically inconvenient story. I’ll add it to the Van Jones, Kevin Jennings ACORN, etc. list. As usual, for anyone interested in the facts, Fox News, talk radio, the Drudge Report and the British Press are great resources. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, etc. offer nothing.

#1.If an e-mail states that it is a “travesty” that the Global Warming community can’t come up with an explanation for recent cooling isn’t significant,what is? A prominent warming supporter has been revealed to be a skeptic in that e-mail.#2 What good is the IPCC report if the data in large part comes from the CRU,where contradictory data was suppressed?#3Does Roger Harrabin have a science degree?Does he have any degree?Isn’t using him as a source the same as using Al Gore?

cara, if the hacker broke the law he should be prosecuted. but illegal actions in no way deny the validity of the scandal, just as a police search in violation of the 4th amendment doesn’t negate the fact that a criminal act occured, even if the evidence cannot be used in a prosecution. bottom line is that the emails need to be thoroughly investigated, wouldn’t you agree? after all, if we’re talking about making drastic changes that could have serious and lasting global economic impacts, it would seem prudent to make sure that such changes are made upon a proper foundation. although i’ve come to believe that many “environmentalists” have an agenda greater than simply wanting to protect the air and water.

most people know that activist groups on the right and left have trained internet “goons” who go on web sites to obfuscate and blow up debates. it’s pretty obvious that at least one person posting in this thread has been so trained and dispatched.

Does Roger Harrabin have a science degree?Does he have any degree?Isn’t using him as a source the same as using Al Gore?
Posted by: Nephron | Nov 27, 2009 12:16:06 PM
Odd take. Roger Harrabin is a journalist, environment analysis is his “beat.” I guess you could ask why read any article written by a journalist about this matter, even if they interview several scientists from a few different camps, but… to me, that’s peculiar. Here’s a quote from the article from Professor Judith Curry, a mainstream climate scientist from the Georgia Institute of Technology in the US.
“In my opinion, there are two broader issues raised by these e-mails that are impeding the public credibility of climate research: lack of transparency in climate data, and ‘tribalism’ in some segments of the climate research community that is impeding peer review and the assessment process.
“The need for public credibility and transparency has dramatically increased in recent years as the policy relevance of climate research has increased. The climate research enterprise has not yet adapted to this need, and our institutions need to strategise to respond to this need.”
Here’s a quote from another scientist, from the same article:
“”The difference between science and other branches of life – like politics – is that we should be completely transparent about what we do,” he said.
“Everything should be open to question. The people who have been alleging a conspiracy over the years will see that there is no conspiracy – that one side has clearly won the debate that the climate has been changing and that human activities are the only plausible explanation.
“If this is the most evidence they can come up with of a conspiracy after looking through thousands of e-mails where researchers thought they were talking in private – well, it’s pretty pathetic.”
Conclusion? Yes, there are some problems that have been unveiled via criminal acts. I’m for more transparency. But there’s no nail in the coffin or smoking gun or debunking of global warming theory. And I don’t want to see America fail to take the lead on alternate energy and green jobs and technology while this gets sorted out. I don’t think its as integral as many are making it out to be, and I worry about those who have a tendency to hugely exaggerate minor details in order to deny, distort and distract– and derail. Come to think of it, wasn’t that the GOP strategy, in cahoots with the insurance lobby, to get rid of health care reform?
i think it’s really important that America doesn’t lag on energy and green technologies. It will be a huge opportunity missed– and if climate change theory is right, and I tend to think it is, the stakes are higher for us all if we go with the deniers and they turn out to be wrong than they would be if we go with the climate change proponents and they turn out to be wrong as we’ll need alternate energy — and clean air and water– anyway, for national security and environmental/public health reasons.

“The need for public credibility and transparency has dramatically increased in recent years as the policy relevance of climate research has increased. The climate research enterprise has not yet adapted to this need, and our institutions need to strategise to respond to this need.” —-
The basic problem with this is that if and when they do provide the transparency, the entire “consensus” of global warming will not hold water.
In just this look into the nuts and bolts of the research, we see not only an effort to skew the data to “prove” the theory, but also an effort to blackball any institution or journal who dares to question the findings.. It would seem that it would only be necessary to do that if the results are not valid. If thye were, ther would be no need to use “tricks” or to condemn those who question.

Very few (skeptical scientists), if any, are DENYING that global warming exists OR (saying) that man has NO contribution to it.
______________________________________
Exactly.

Is the same fudging of data going on in New Zealand?Is this another example of fraud?
Posted by: Nephron | Nov 27, 2009 6:11:12 PM
There’s no question that some of the data discussed in the hacked emails should be examined and reanalyzed, but let’s remain realistic.
Here’s what I mean:Yesterday the Drudge Report linked to Tim Lambert’s Deltoid blog at ScienceBlogs. Apparently Drudge thought that Lambert’s post debunking the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition’s dishonesty was actually supporting them. Now, the link is gone. Imagine that.
LOL.
For a good piece on the climate denial front group called the “New Zealand Climate Science Coalition” check out
“NZ sceptics lie about temp records, try to smear top scientist: The cranks in the NZ Climate “Science” Coalition have sunk to new lows in a desperate attempt to cash in on the far-right driven furore about the Hadley CRU data theft.”
Deltoid’s piece on the same topic is called “New Zealand Climate Science Coalition caught lying about temperature trends”
The post starts with an update from Tim Lambert: “A special message to visitors from Drudge: you are being lied to. Global warming is happening and we’re causing it, but to avoid dealing with the problem folks are shooting the messenger, attacking the scientists who discovered and reported on the problem. The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition isn’t made up of climate scientists, but is just a group of global warming skeptics who gave themselves a fancy title. And they just got caught combining temperature data from different places to get rid of the inconvenient warming trend in New Zealand. If you want to know what the science really says, please read the Copenhagen Diagnosis.”

It would seem that it would only be necessary to do that if the results are not valid….
Posted by: arkievet | Nov 27, 2009 3:07:32 PM
I’m not going to condone what they did
but I disagree with you. Look at all the ridiculously exaggerated claims that have been made about what the emails allegedly “prove.” As other journalists, bloggers, commenters, and scientists have noted the disclosed private emails between climate scientists at the University of East Anglia reveal an intellectual circle, or tribe, that clearly feels very much under attack, and maybe scornful and vengeful or punitive toward its enemies. Maybe that latter is harsh– but they don’t think much of the denier and skeptic crowd, for sure.
Stephen H. Schneider, a Stanford University climate scientist who was actually copied in one of the hacked emails details the intense debate over warming, arguing that it has helped slow the nation’s public policy response in his new book, “Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save the Earth’s Climate.”
Look at the extremes the deniers and skeptics have gone to.
I agree with George Monbiot, and Bradford Plumer of The Vine, who writes:”The scientific community absolutely has to take the high ground on the climate issue—it doesn’t matter that deniers behave far worse, or that scientists feel beleaguered after years of being smeared by conspiracy nuts on the right [although I think that's worth considering as a mitigating factor up to a certain point]”
On the other hand, as Plumer also notes, science has never been as “clean” as people like to romanticize; scientists have acted like agenda-wielding jerks throughout history, yet the process remains robust. For a great take on that see “Newtongate: the final nail in the coffin of Renaissance and Enlightenment ‘thinking’”– it’s interesting, just for everyone, forget I have a position. You don’t have to agree with how I think about climate change to find it interesting.

“Very few (skeptical scientists), if any, are DENYING that global warming exists OR (saying) that man has NO contribution to it. ”
An online petition which states that “there is no convincing scientific evidence” that greenhouse gases will cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere has been signed by over 31,000 American scientists. The list includes over 9,000 who have PhD.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology and Earth science to name a few; nearly 7,000 Master’s degrees; over 2,000 medical doctors and nearly 13,000 bachelor of science or equivalent academic degrees.

Posted by: James Danley | Nov 27, 2009 8:26:38 PM
This whole petition has been debunked many times over all over the blogosphere and on this blog– as I’ve seen it debunked at least three times as a lurker. It is propaganda. Anyone who wants to know all the issues and deception involved can google Global Warming Petition project debunked or Oregon petition project debunked as the former is an update of the messy unprofessional latter.
.1% of Signers Have a Background in Climatology– that’s right, there’s a decimal point there. don’t even get me started on how many have advanced degrees. Take a random samples of names from the list and Google search them for more information. What you’ll quickly find is either no information, very little information or information substantiating the fact that the vast majority of signers are completely unqualified in the area of climate change science.
Also, the petition and the documents included were all made to look like official papers from the prestigious National Academy of Science. They weren’t, and this attempt to mislead has been well-documented.
That’s just the tip of the iceberg by the way. I urge everyone to research the matter of the petition.
Bringing it up is either extremely dishonest, very gullible, or beyond the pale when it comes to amateurishness.

Try entering “Petition Project” on any Internet search engine.

Cara, how many of the “2,500 of the world’s foremost scientists” cited by Carol Browner have a background in climatology?
Posted by: James Danley | Nov 27, 2009 9:16:20 PM
James, with all due respect, you cited the silly petition, so now it’s on you to back it up if you want to be known as a propagandist. I urge people to read the debunkings– and if they want back up for their skepticism to at least read and then cite something legitimate– a feasible scientific argument. A couple commenters on here have done that. As for Carol Browner, I’ll tell you what– I’ll discuss what I post not some straw man you throw out there, probably to distract and get on turf that makes you feel more comfortable than the science does. What’s important is the science– so what I say to you is this– 2009 is shaping up to be the 5th warmest year on record, according to the “conspiracists” at NASA. Read the Copenhagen Diagnosis and websites dealing with the science. And check out “U.N.: Greenhouse Gases Hit Record in 2008–World Meteorological Organization Says Carbon Dioxide Levels Still Rising Faster Than Ever.” I can also provide you with a list of scientific and academic organizations who support the theory of climate change– but that’s already been done by others at various junctures.
There’s really no comparison between the “petition” and the scientific organizations that support the theory. But in the end, its not the numbers that matter, now is it?– I just hate propaganda of such a blatantly discredited nature.

Actually it is called peer review, and its been don – over and over again.
Posted by: tierra | Nov 27, 2009 12:43:55 PM
_____________________
The peer review process itself was distorted per the CRU documents.

According to NOAA, this past summer the United States had the 34th coolest summer (June-August) on record. And the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) recorded 2,254 daily record low temperatures and 1,296 low temperature records were tied; 4,051 daily record low maximums were recorded and 1,501 records were tied across the nation.
Granted this is a very “small” area and an extremely short time frame. But how are these anomalies explained away if the greenhouse gas emissions are getting worse and the overall trend is for warming? This is a serious question! Please provide a serious answer.

“…, because you were so proud of a discredited petition…”
NO! A previous commenter wrote: “Very few (skeptical scientists), if any, are DENYING that global warming exists OR (saying) that man has NO contribution to it.”
I only pointed out that the website claims to have over 31,000 American scientists who have signed their petition in order to counter the commenter’s claim that few (skeptical scientists), if any, are denying the global warming theory.
Finally, it is this article to which everyone has been commenting that cites Carol Browner.

Finally, it is this article to which everyone has been commenting that cites Carol Browner.
Posted by: James Danley | Nov 28, 2009 12:23:50 AM
___
Oops. Sorry about that James. How funny. I actually read the article yesterday, but I guess that didn’t stay with me as important. (Forehead slap!)
For the global temp records, see NASA, and think Australia’s summer.
I’ve tried to post responses a couple times. Not sure what the problem is.

I find it interesting that Cara cites 2500 of the world’s foremost scientists as supporting global warming,but can’t identify what type of scientists they are.Well,in point of fact most do NOT have degrees in meteorology or geophysics and most are not climate researchers. For heaven’s sake, the head of the IPCC is a railroad engineer!It would make sense that most current climatologists believe in global warming-they go into the field with preconceived notions about the validity of the theory.After 20 years of indoctrination it would be difficult to have an opposing position, particularly now that the e-mails reveal collusion and attempts to suppress alternative data.Most of the global warming hype is based on computer models,which the e-mails show are terribly flawed.

Actually it is called peer review, and its been don – over and over again.
Posted by: tierra | Nov 27, 2009 12:43:55 PM
______________________
Here’s peer review as done by Phil Jones of the CRU and Micheal Mann of Penn State in reference to some dissenting papers. Jones to Mann:
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

I also must note that one must really dig to find any mention of this breach regarding the UEA event on any other MSM publication or website when one can merely search outside of the alphabet news organizations let alone the 150 or so emails I received this Holiday weekend regarding this alleged evisceration of the truth.
This information is spreading like wildfire from New Zealand to Europe with our own media completely ignoring such an important issue thinking it a non issue?
Okay, I’ll play. What were the Thanksgiving side dishes the Obama’s enjoyed during the Holiday? Can’t wait…and in all seriousness neither can this administration in its investigation of the UEA breach.
Tina

Climate research scientist Eduardo Zorita (Institute for Coastal Research at the GKSS Research Center) explains why he thinks Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process:
“Short answer: because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.”

Climategate. Fraud for personal gain.
Healthcare. Be watchful. Obama was summoned to China then returned in time to host the Indian PM.
China and India are major manufacturers of generic drugs. Medicaid/Medicare/Healthcare Reform all demand generic drugs.
Is this the push for rapid pass of the health bill?
CLIMATEGATE: the winnowing of Mr Obama and Mr Gore. Shameful fraud on Americans

I’ve been begging tierra, Alyson and others to read the Wegman report which was published in 2006 and readily available on many websites. Here’s an excerpt from the summary:
“• What is the current scientific consensus on the conclusions reached by Drs. Mann, Bradley and Hughes? [Referring to the hockey stick propagated in UN IPCC 2001 by Michael Mann.]
Ans: Based on the literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on MBH98/99. As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.”
AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE ‘HOCKEY STICK’ GLOBAL CLIMATE RECONSTRUCTION, also known as The Wegman report was authored by Edward J. Wegman, George Mason University, David W. Scott, Rice University, and Yasmin H. Said, The Johns Hopkins University with the contributions of John T. Rigsby, III, Naval Surface Warfare Center, and Denise M. Reeves, MITRE Corporation.
tierra, please note that Dr. Edward Wegman is the Professor of Statistics at George Mason University, and at the time chaired the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics. His credentials are beyond reproach.
Skeptical scientists have been trying to make headway on so many issues that are now finally exposed in the Climategate scandal. The documents CORROBORATE what they’ve been claiming for upwards of ten years. This isn’t news to those of us who have been closely following this saga for many years.

Times on Line now reports East Anglia CRU destroyed their orginal climate data!Incredible! No reputable scientist can accept any further climate data from CRU.One of the cardinal issues for true scientic truth is reproducibility.CRU has destroyed any possibility of that.

Serafina, do you know anything about nuclear power? How many uranium miners were killed in accidents in the last five years? There is a perfect spent fuel storage place-it is called Yucca Flats and if we had any leadership we would be storing waste there now.Nuclear power has been used safely for power for decades.It works.If you cut corners like the Soviets did (Graphite reactors, no containment building, cheap materials) you can have problems, but the history of Western reactors has been one of consistent safety and reiability. Even the worst accident (3-Mile Island) had virtually no significant long-term consequences.If it hadn’t been for the anti-nuclear power fanatics destroying the expansion of nuclear power 30 years ago we would now be well on our way to clean energy independence.Thanks guys.

Serafina,
Where to begin? I suggest you drop the “Big Oil” funding argument. How much money has the US Government spent, mainly in grants to universities and in house government agencies like NOAA and NASA, on climate research? It’s $79 billion over the last decade. That’s quite a gravy train for Mann and Hansen and others. How much in private funding has Exxon made during the same period to attempt to balance a one-sided argument? About 23 million. Ooooh, Big Oil is really doing some damage. Ironically Exxon donates at least that much to the same institutions that squelch debate, like Penn State.
The Catlin Expedition? Three AGW desciples tried to reach the North Pole and were turned back. They measured the ice in a few spots and actually found it to be thicker than they expected. There are plenty of threads on wattsupwiththat that followed the explorers in real time. Please enlighten yourself.
I also loved the sources you provided: Desmogblog, Wiki, Sourcewatch and Think Progress. Really? Are these impartial fonts of information? You forgot the The DailyKos, Huffington Post and CAP. I would be interested in what you suspect about McIntyre. He’s a Canadian liberal, and a true man of science.

The very foundation?
____________
Yes, because it is based on flawed–if not manipulated–data.

Inaccurate, if you’re referring to the “foundation.” There are three extremely good points to be made. That’s not one of them.
Posted by: Serafina | Nov 29, 2009 6:36:56 PM
_____________________
Well then, make them!

Serafina:”Follow the money. Check the oil connections. Check McIntrye’s conflicts of interests. Check Barton’s.”
Follow the money? Excellent idea! How much money does Penn State stand to lose if there’s no climate crisis? Al Gore? U of EA? U of Colorado? Generation Investment Management? Chicago Carbon Credit Exchange? NASA funding? James Hansen speaking engagement fees?
How much money has the federal government spent on “climate research” over the past decade? $79B. Follow the money, indeed.

As I posted earlier, here’s peer review as done by Phil Jones of the CRU and Micheal Mann of Penn State in reference to some dissenting papers. Jones to Mann:
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

I’m curious. Does a good farmer cut down the whole darned tree and throw it out with the bad apples?
No?
Hmmm….
Posted by: Serafina | Nov 29, 2009 8:32:05 PM
_______________________
Sorry kiddo. Good try, but I did not suggest throwing out climate research.
But now that area of study has serious credibility issues that must be addressed by the scientific community. Although I recognize that for some, a few bad apples are okay and don’t hurt the narrative at all.

Interesting, now the CRU is reporting that they “lost” all the data used to make their “models”.
How incompetent can these guys be?

Think CLIMATE-GATE, Al Gore, IPCC and fraud! There is no AGW and 31,478 scientists and 9,029 PhDs completely refute alarmist claims and agree that increased CO2 is beneficial to our planet.
Wake up Obama and Gore, the debate is not over! You cannot close the door on real science.

According to Jones, “We haven’t destroyed anything.The data is still there — you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center.”
Posted by: Helene | Nov 30, 2009 8:59:27 AM
___________________
“SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.”

peer review by Phil Jones of the CRU, eh? he has just stepped down today because of climategate! The inquisition has started, billions of dollars spent on fraudulent models, bad science, and trillions of dollars to be wasted on climate protocols based on junk science

Michael Mann’s data is not only manipulated, it would be flawed in any case because he only used data running back roughly 150 years which doesn’t account for the mini ice age the planet had been in for the previous 500 years. Even IF you take Mann and Jones manipulated data AT FACE VALUE, it ONLY indicates an increase of .8 degrees Celsius (about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) over the last 150 years. THAT is hardly catastrophic warming on any scale. When you then add in the fact that the planet was just starting to come out of a mini ice age when they begin their data set, it indicates the the planet is probably not up to the average mean temperature for the last few thousand years. Hardly a cause for alarm or actions that could throw billions around the world into poverty. IF you really want a better overall indication of global temperatures for the last millenium+ look at the Duke Tree Ring study. They don’t make a bunch of predictions, they simply collected the data. IF you look at the data they collected, and compare their findings to Mann’s and Jones’ predictions, you’ll find that their predictions don’t come close to the actual temperatures from the Medieval Warming period. (which M&J excluded from their data set as it would disprove their theory.) If temperatures were higher during the medieval warming period than M&Js projections, and CO2 levels in ice cores were higher in the past than they are now, how can any causal relationship be drawn between the two? It can’t logically. The catastrophic effects of global warming are fraudulent. The idea that CO2 is causing any form of global warming is fraudulent. THEIR OWN DATA AND COMPUTER CODE SAY SO. Anyone thinking otherwise needs to take a science lab class, fake your data, throw out your real data, and then use your manipulated data to support your theory. Any good prefessor will fail you for doing that. These professors wouldn’t allow a student to get away with that in their classes, yet think they should be allowed to dictate radical poverty causing wealth redistribution policies with the same methodolog.