Moultrie Products
AGW 'Alarmist' Now a Skeptic
Community
Contributors to this thread:
NvaGvUp 27-Nov-17
Spike Bull 27-Nov-17
NvaGvUp 27-Nov-17
Bownarrow 27-Nov-17
Beendare 27-Nov-17
HA/KS 27-Nov-17
NvaGvUp 27-Nov-17
DL 27-Nov-17
Bownarrow 27-Nov-17
bigeasygator 27-Nov-17
bigeasygator 27-Nov-17
HA/KS 28-Nov-17
DL 28-Nov-17
Glunt@work 28-Nov-17
Gray Ghost 28-Nov-17
Rocky 28-Nov-17
bigeasygator 28-Nov-17
bigeasygator 28-Nov-17
Trax 28-Nov-17
elkmtngear 28-Nov-17
bigeasygator 28-Nov-17
ben h 28-Nov-17
Trax 28-Nov-17
Trax 28-Nov-17
Bowfreak 28-Nov-17
DL 28-Nov-17
Gray Ghost 28-Nov-17
NvaGvUp 28-Nov-17
Anony Mouse 28-Nov-17
gadan 28-Nov-17
bigeasygator 28-Nov-17
bad karma 28-Nov-17
Gray Ghost 28-Nov-17
Spike Bull 28-Nov-17
Trax 28-Nov-17
Trax 28-Nov-17
Trax 28-Nov-17
bigeasygator 28-Nov-17
Trax 28-Nov-17
gadan 28-Nov-17
bigeasygator 28-Nov-17
bigeasygator 28-Nov-17
Bownarrow 28-Nov-17
bad karma 28-Nov-17
Bownarrow 28-Nov-17
TD 29-Nov-17
Spike Bull 29-Nov-17
Amoebus 29-Nov-17
bad karma 29-Nov-17
gadan 29-Nov-17
gadan 29-Nov-17
bigeasygator 29-Nov-17
bigeasygator 29-Nov-17
bigeasygator 29-Nov-17
bigeasygator 29-Nov-17
Gray Ghost 29-Nov-17
bigeasygator 29-Nov-17
bigeasygator 29-Nov-17
DL 29-Nov-17
bigeasygator 29-Nov-17
HA/KS 29-Nov-17
Woods Walker 29-Nov-17
HA/KS 29-Nov-17
Woods Walker 29-Nov-17
Woods Walker 29-Nov-17
HA/KS 29-Nov-17
TD 30-Nov-17
Anony Mouse 30-Nov-17
Dirk Diggler 30-Nov-17
bigeasygator 30-Nov-17
Woods Walker 30-Nov-17
Trax 30-Nov-17
Woods Walker 30-Nov-17
bigeasygator 30-Nov-17
Spike Bull 30-Nov-17
bigeasygator 30-Nov-17
Trax 30-Nov-17
bigeasygator 30-Nov-17
gadan 30-Nov-17
Shuteye 30-Nov-17
bigeasygator 30-Nov-17
Trax 30-Nov-17
bigeasygator 30-Nov-17
Trax 30-Nov-17
bigeasygator 30-Nov-17
Trax 30-Nov-17
bigeasygator 30-Nov-17
Trax 30-Nov-17
Trax 30-Nov-17
Trax 30-Nov-17
bigeasygator 30-Nov-17
Trax 01-Dec-17
bigeasygator 01-Dec-17
Trax 01-Dec-17
bigeasygator 01-Dec-17
gadan 01-Dec-17
bigeasygator 01-Dec-17
Anony Mouse 01-Dec-17
Trax 01-Dec-17
Annony Mouse 02-Dec-17
Annony Mouse 04-Dec-17
Annony Mouse 07-Dec-17
From: NvaGvUp
27-Nov-17
Sometimes the truth hurts.

Via HotAir:

"Warming (AGW) based in false science

Bruce McQuain

May 15, 2011

David Evans is a scientist. He has also worked in the heart of the AGW machine.  He consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He has six university degrees, including a PhD in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University.

The other day he said:

'The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic.'

And with that he begins a demolition of the theories, premises and methods by which the AGW scare has been foisted on the public.

The politics:

'The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.'

He makes clear he understands that CO2 is indeed a “greenhouse gas”, and makes the point that if all else was equal then yes, more CO2 in the air should and would mean a warmer planet. But that’s where the current “science” goes off the tracks.It is built on an assumption that is false.

The science:

'But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much. Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.

The disagreement comes about what happens next.

The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas.' [emphasis mine]

But it didn’t increase the height of the moist air around the planet as subsequent studies have shown since that time. However, that theory or premise became the heart of the modeling that was done by the alarmist crowd.

The modeling:

'This is the core idea of every official climate model: For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three — so two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.

That’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism. What did they find when they tried to prove this theory?

Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide. This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.'

Evans is not the first to come to these conclusions. Earlier this year, in a post I highlighted, Richard Lindzen said the very same thing.

'For warming since 1979, there is a further problem. The dominant role of cumulus convection in the tropics requires that temperature approximately follow what is called a moist adiabatic profile. This requires that warming in the tropical upper troposphere be 2-3 times greater than at the surface. Indeed, all models do show this, but the data doesn’t and this means that something is wrong with the data.

It is well known that above about 2 km altitude, the tropical temperatures are pretty homogeneous in the horizontal so that sampling is not a problem. Below two km (roughly the height of what is referred to as the trade wind inversion), there is much more horizontal variability, and, therefore, there is a profound sampling problem. Under the circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that the problem resides in the surface data, and that the actual trend at the surface is about 60% too large. Even the claimed trend is larger than what models would have projected but for the inclusion of an arbitrary fudge factor due to aerosol cooling.

The discrepancy was reported by Lindzen (2007) and by Douglass et al (2007). Inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data.'

Evans reaches the natural conclusion – the same conclusion Lindzen reached:

'At this point, official “climate science” stopped being a science. In science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.'

And why will it continue? Again, follow the money:

'We are now at an extraordinary juncture. Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only ways to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government — how exciting for the political class!'

Indeed. How extraordinarily unexciting for the proletariat who will be the ones stuck with the bill if these governments ever succeed in finding a way to pass the taxes they hope to impose and extend even more government’s control over energy.

While you’re listening to the CEOs of American oil companies being grilled by Congress today, remember all of this. They’re going to try to punish an industry that is vital to our economy and national security, and much of the desire to do that is based on this false “science” that has been ginned up by government itself as an excuse to control more of our energy sector, raise untold revenues for its use and to pick winners and losers.

All based on something which is, according to Evans and other scientists, now demonstrably false."

27-Nov-17
Great find, Nva!

From: NvaGvUp
27-Nov-17
Thanks, Spike.

Twenty-Plus years ago, I told my ex and others the very idea of AGW was a scam.

The left no longer had the Soviet Union to promote controlling and screwing capitalism, (Thank you, Ronald Reagan!), so they turned to AGW as their last best hope.

At first, my ex thought I was full of it, but then she got all of her information from Time and Newsweek, so what else would you expect?

Thankfully, at my encouragement, she began looking at additional sources for her 'news.'

Since then she's become as conservative as I am.

She's really bright, (medical degree from North Carolina, internship and residency at Stanford), so once she saw the other side, she went from being a middle-of-the-road Republican to a solid movement conservative.

At that point, she totally reversed course on the Global Warming crappola and came to understand it was all left-wing garbage.

From: Bownarrow
27-Nov-17
Not sure how old you guys are but I'm 51. It's warmer where I live than when I grew up. But maybe that's a natural cycle. Or maybe when you burn gas it pollutes the air and it creates a colder climate. What I find interesting is how certain some of you are that Global Warming is not possible, and how excited you are that someone agrees with your position. Yes, not matter what you believe, someone will agree. As a hunter I want the air to be as clean as possible and that means burning less fossil based fuels and moving towards solar, wind, and renewable electrical. It's not a religious war. Hunters and fisherman should all be demanding energy that is clean. As far as Global Warming, like all theories, we won't be alive when it gets proven or disproven. But does that really matter? We know we want clean air and water and fossil fuels need to be phased out or reduced to accomplish that. I would argue the liberal position is to burn fossil fuels for immediate benefit and the conservative position is to save those resources for a latter day that hopefully does not come. But I'm not a reality TV republican. Here's a counter argument about the fellow you cite: https://www.skepticalscience.com/david-evans-understanding-goes-cold.html

From: Beendare
27-Nov-17
Yeah, thx Kyle....interesting.

When i saw the one study pointing at global warming but then they had some of their temp sensors in parking lots....my BS meter went off.

From: HA/KS
27-Nov-17
"fossil fuels need to be phased out" Yes, along with capitalism and freedom.

(that is the real agenda - they could care less about the earth)

The root of all of this is a hatred of the thought that the God who created Earth also told men to subdue it.

From: NvaGvUp
27-Nov-17
BownArrow,

And it's colder in several places around the world than it was when you were younger.

Then there's this. Glaciers created Minnesota's 10,000 lakes and a lot more in other states thousands of years ago. Then they all melted.

That was GLOBAL WARMING.

A few hundred years ago, people were FARMING in Greenland, but no more. GLOBAL COOLING ended that era.

That's what nature does and mankind has absolutely nothing to do with it.

From: DL
27-Nov-17
A year ago I was in Jasper and Banff in Alberta. We went up to the Columbia ice field. Largest glacial area in the Rockies. We were at the Athabaska glacier. It’s across the valley from the observation center. There’s a sign on the opposite side of the valley stating that this was the farthest point that the glacier had moved in 1844. Ever since then it’s been retreating. Did you get that??? Now glaciers are usually surrounded by rock. So the further the glacier retreats the more rock that is exposed and the rock acts as a heat sink absorbing and storing heat. That in turn melts the glacier. The more rock that’s exposed the more heat stored causing the ice to melt faster and faster. The glacier also gets thinner escalating the melting. So when people say glaciers are melting at an alarming rate there’s your answer. Anyone can get an ice cube and figure that out.

From: Bownarrow
27-Nov-17
NV: So you think mankind does not impact the air, water or atmosphere, is that what you are telling me? Just want to make sure I understand you on that. Either way, as hunters I believe our goal should be to support anything that promotes clean air and water. Even if the liberal hippies have a cause that parallels it.

DL, yes, I've been to Jasper and Banff (multiple times) and the park people I talked with believe it's Global Warming making their glaciers recede. I'm sure there are some that say it's rocks warming the ground. Again, we will be dead when the final consensus comes out on that, but my point is that I don't understand why a hunter would be so against the concept of GW. It seems to support our goals of clean water and air, right? Is it you hate the hippies and don't want to viewed that way or something? Why are you guys so certain you are right? There is no way to be sure one way or the other-it's a theory, and there is evidence you can believe or refute. Or do you know for sure on this one? Again, I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from because when I read your posts it appears you think you have an answer that is beyond dispute.

From: bigeasygator
27-Nov-17

bigeasygator's Link
A modicum of research on the man in your article will reveal a number of things: he’s never been an AGW alarmist and it’s disingenuous to pass him off as such. He’s also not a climate scientist and has a total of zero peer reviewed papers to his credit. I’d say he is part of the fringe of deniers, but in this case, that’s still giving him too much credit.

Whether AGW is happening isn’t up for debate, that is unless you subscribe to the beliefs of about 2% of the climate scientists. For the overwhelming majority it is fact. As it is for every major oil company who have all gone on record and admitted to the human role in global warming.

Whether we should care or not is another matter and it’s worth debating the merits of any response to combat AGW. But, from a statistical perspective, the science is conclusive. You don’t have to take my word for it. Click on the link and let former climate change skeptic physicist Richard Muller tell you.

From: bigeasygator
27-Nov-17

bigeasygator's Link
Beendare, you should educate yourself on the actual science behind the claims. Data is corrected all of the time for things like urban heat sinks, time of day, instrument adjustments, and station moves. While it’s fine for your BS meter to go off, solid science accounts for these things. Peer reviews are designed to catch these types of things and challenge assumptions.

From: HA/KS
28-Nov-17
"Whether AGW is happening isn’t up for debate"

That is true if you believe the leftists. It is "Settled Science." Is that the same settled science that just a few years ago was telling us that man was causing a new ice age?

They do not want a debate or an honest look at science because they know they don't have a true leg to stand on.

From: DL
28-Nov-17
Big easy there is nor ever has been money in research for positive results. I have a good friend that’s a plant Geneticist. He got his PHD at UC Davis. He has been doing this since the 70s his company is a global one that designs berry plants for almost every continent on the planet. They have to know climate trends globally to be able to design a plant that will flourish there. They do an incredible business. Without constant climate research his company would soon loose its credibility globally and die. I’ve asked him about AGW when hunting and his response is that it’s about money and control. Climates globally change over the years and they have to be on top of it. Strawberry plants in particular are now planted annually and then plowed under. Strawberry’s used to take three years to get maximum yield. Now one year. How ever they tweak plants genetically he said it’s an on going process. This years heat resistant plant may suffer from the cooler temps next year. I put more trust in someone like him than people who make a living at trying to get grant money from todays bogey man. Money’s flowing on climate change research. Australia came out and let researchers know that since they have said that research has proven climate change is real and proven fact they cut 140 research jobs in 2016. So if researchers globally have that conclusion no more money should be given out just to beat a dead horse.

From: Glunt@work
28-Nov-17
Honest, its just a coincidence that the solution for global warming is less freedom and higher taxes. I say bring it on. I'll start a pineapple plantation in North Dakota and if the ice age hits I'll run snowmobile tours in the Ozarks.

From: Gray Ghost
28-Nov-17
I guess some debates are never "resoved" for some. ;-)

Matt

From: Rocky
28-Nov-17
P.T. Barnum must have fathered these climate change scientist. Do people truly believe they are going to live forever with or without palm tree's in the Allagash Forest. Goats don't have a damned thing on Americans when it comes to eating.

The Rock

From: bigeasygator
28-Nov-17
HA/KS,

There was never a consensus in the scientific community related to a new ice age and was actually largely media driven. Beyond that, there hardly was a climate science community. So yes, the science is very different now. The data, the methods, the analysis, the models have all evolved tremendously. Questioning the science of today based on climate predictions of a fringe group of climate scientists from 50-60 years ago is, well, bad science.

DL, that's fine if you want to believe a plant biologist. I've talked to the climate researchers we keep on our staff. They are folks who, if anything, are incentivized to denounce AGW based on who is cutting their paychecks. They've seen the data, they've played with the models and they have come to the conclusion that humans and CO2 are a big part of what we're seeing with regards to climate. They are good scientists -- and science is agnostic to money. Sure, there are terrible scientists out there, but the scientific community tends to do a good job of weeding them out. Could they be wrong? Sure. But scientifically speaking and statistically speaking, it's looking very unlikely that they are. Until the anti-AGW crowd provides a peer reviewed explanation for what is going on with the climate that shows something other than CO2 being the primary culprit I will remain unconvinced to their arguments.

From: bigeasygator
28-Nov-17

bigeasygator's Link
And if you'd like to read a rebuttal to Mr. Evans' claims regarding water vapor feedback on climate models, here's a post from an actual climate scientist that has links to literally dozens of peer reviewed papers on the topic. It contains data and statistics and numbers and stuff which I know is like a kryptonite to a lot of folks on here, but if you want to see what actual science looks like have at it. He also addresses some of the ridiculous points being made on this AGW thread, and every other one for that matter.

"Dr. Evans is an engineer, not a climate scientist. This is not to say that his opinion should be automatically disqualified, but based on this article it is clear that he does NOT understand the evidence.

Also, it is rather ironic that Dr. Evans is implying that it is more beneficial for a scientist to be an “alarmists” rather than a “skeptic”. I wonder which has worked out better for Dr. Evans? When he was an “alarmist” nobody had ever heard of him. Now that he is a “skeptic” he is a mini-celebrity who’s opinion is being championed by opportunistic politicians."

"I would love for Dr. Evans to go to an American Geophysical Union meeting and see how climate science really works. The whole scientific process is inherently adversarial. Scientists have large egos and it is obvious that many of them take great pleasure in debating even the most insignificant claims. Not only that, but proving other people wrong is exactly how you make a name for yourself in science. The idea that scientists all over the world at thousands of different institutions are all colluding about global warming is ridiculous. There is simply way too much to be gained by being the person who could prove the consensus wrong."

EDIT: It looks like many of the cited sources requires a membership to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). I am a member, so if you would like a .pdf version of any of the sources I can get one to you. Let me know.

From: Trax
28-Nov-17
How about Dr. Ivar Giaver bigeasyliberal. Was he ever a skeptic? How about the hundreds of esteemed members of climate science who do not and never did believe man was cooking the planet. All on the take? There never has been a "consensus" concerning anthropogenic global warming, just what the leftists have sold as a consensus to the blind and dumb sheep. Yes follow the money, follow the leftist politics, and follow the intimidation to all those (especially the young and starting out) in science and education concerning the issue. This scam has been fully exposed. Not all of the chicken little science is wrong, but 100% of the chicken little presentation has been.

28-Nov-17
everyone wants to make it simple and say it's all about humans and their impact on the planet but it's way more complicated. It's not an all or nothing proposition. It's not all the fault of human civilization but there is likely some impact on climate from what we put in the atmosphere. Likewise it's indisputable that things were getting a lot warmer way before humans had much chance to impact anything. Personally I think we should do more to keep the planet in good shape where it's feasible. It's money well spent. I'm far from a tree hugger but I'm tired of climbing up to the top of a mountain and seeing a beer can or a $hit pile and I do my best to minimize my impact.

From: elkmtngear
28-Nov-17

From: bigeasygator
28-Nov-17
Ivan Giaever is a physicist with a background in solid-state physics, not climate science. His questioning of AGW, as he has admitted in his own words, comes from spending a "half a day, maybe, on Google" researching global warming. His arguments against global warming reflect a profound ignorance on the subject -- something somewhat stunning for a Nobel laureate. Statements like:

"How can you measure the average temperature of the Earth? I don't think that's possible"

and

"Water vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. If you look out of the window, you see the sky, you see the clouds, and you don't see the CO2."

Not only are these statements easily debunked, they border on the ramblings of a crazy person (CO2 is a bit player with regards to climate because you can't see it??).

From: ben h
28-Nov-17
I like Bownarrow's posts above. I think it's ironic how many "conservatives" seem to hate conserving resources. I don't know if burning fossil fuels causes global warming or not, but I do know it adds to pollution and we should minimize that to the extent practical. I'm not a leftist treehugger type, but I do what I can to minimize my environmental footprint and I don't see why anyone who likes the outdoors, clean water and air would feel otherwise.

From: Trax
28-Nov-17
Dr. Giaver was a darling of the Chicken Little camp, until he bolted. They used to love to flaunt that he was a Nobelist, and now they have to de-fame him. As Dr. Giaver has attended many events with skeptcis and now with those who aren't. His conclusion is simply "it's amazing how stable our world temperatures have been in the last 150 years". He has concluded man is indeed not cooking the planet.

CO2 has continued to rise and broken a barrier that decades earlier Chicken Little's said would burn the planet down. Yet temperatures unfortunately for the Chicken Little's have not cooperated, sometimes forcing Chicken Little's to resort to collusion and outright lies to sell their propaganda. Start by seeing East Anglia and Mikey Mann's famed hockey stick but there's much more.

Don't like Dr. Giaver bigeasyliberal? Then let's start with one of the great atmospheric scientists of our time in Dr. Ricahrd Lindzen. He's worked on this for decades. On the take you say? Bad breath? Balding? What other foolery can you come up with? Then we'll move on to the atmospheric temperature data being worked on by Dr.'s Christy and Spencer.

From: Trax
28-Nov-17
"I think it's ironic how many "conservatives" seem to hate conserving resources."

Really, I don't know of one personally. There is a difference between being a conservationist and a whacked out environmentalist. Night and day. Any sane person is in favor of clean air and water and more wild lands. Any sane person is also in favor of not returning to the stone age. Conservationists apply common sense, environmentalists apply idiocy.

From: Bowfreak
28-Nov-17
It is warmer today than it was yesterday. It was cold here in the 70s. It was hot in the 90s. The last few winters we have had were mild. The last few summers were mild. A few years ago we had two terrible winters. What does all of this mean? Nothing really but if I had to categorize, it means that the weather and climate have been changing my whole life and my bet is it has been changing since the beginning of time. I will also bet that it continues to change.

From: DL
28-Nov-17
If it’s been decided and no discussion left then cut off all the millions wasted in research.

From: Gray Ghost
28-Nov-17
Good posts, Ben H and Bownarrow.

Matt

From: NvaGvUp
28-Nov-17
Bownarrow,

Just what does wanting clean air and clean water have to do with 'global warming?'

From: Anony Mouse
28-Nov-17
Discuss: global warming predicated upon human created computer models which have regularly been modified to make data support the supposition of AGW.

Include evidence from climategate revelations about the selection of data used and sequestration of data that refuted the desired conclusions.

Note: neither Gore, Decrapio or Nye are scientists.

From: gadan
28-Nov-17
1. GW scientists are motivated to perpetuate their message because they are paid by grants, grants that continue only if there is a problem with GW.

2. In response to downarrow's point, yes, we as sportsman all want clean air and water and would likely all agree that reasonable regulation can accomplish that along with the individual care we all should and do take to accomplish that....but, these do not affect GW.

3. The GW community has been exposed with 6 MAJOR scandals where they twisted data or used skewed sources for data. There are many more than the 6.

4. Consensus is a horrible arbiter of truth.

From: bigeasygator
28-Nov-17

bigeasygator's Link
1. GW scientists are motivated to perpetuate their message because they are paid by grants, grants that continue only if there is a problem with GW. That's categorically false.

"3. The GW community has been exposed with 6 MAJOR scandals where they twisted data or used skewed sources for data. There are many more than the 6. No, there aren't." Please see my previous post on why and how data gets corrected in order to provide more accurate analysis. The fact that people don't understand how good science works does not constitute a scandal. Attached is a fact check of one of these more recent scandals I'm sure you are alluding to. In this case, data was adjusted to account for the fact that it was collected from two different sources over time (in this case, ocean temperature readings from ships and temperature readings from buoys). The sources collect data in different ways which results in differences in the data set. This needs to be corrected in order to have a meaningful common set of data (using assumptions that are articulated, justified, and peer reviewed). This "twisting" of data concept is a big nothingburger and anyone with a reasonable understanding of data analysis gets this -- which is why these points only really seem to be brought up by politicians and individuals outside of the scientific community.

From: bad karma
28-Nov-17
I'll bet Gadan understands how science works.

From: Gray Ghost
28-Nov-17
This thread makes me wonder how Jim Johnson and Genejockey are doing.

Did anyone ever save their epic "resoved" debate on GW? Most of it went way over my head, but it was a an engaging fun read.

Matt

28-Nov-17
There is no question that there has been global warming. I am sitting where there was a glacier just 10,000 years ago!

Also, there is no question that climate change is a fact. The climate has changed forever and will continue. It ebbs and flows as the important factors ebb and flow.

However, AGW (antbropogenic global warming) claims that we, people, are changing the climate to our imminent danger! Nonsense!

We have not seen any provable change in the global temperature because of humans in all of recorded history.

The best guesses of those with credibility put the tiny single digit percentage of change which may be attributable to humans as possible BUT they also say that no amount of billions of dollars nor even the complete cessation of all possible contributions by humanity will stop it or even mitigate it.

The movement is a blatant grab for money and power.

From: Trax
28-Nov-17

Trax's Link
"This "twisting" of data concept is a big nothingburger and anyone with a reasonable understanding of data analysis gets this -- which is why these points only really seem to be brought up by politicians and individuals outside of the scientific community"

Like most Chicken Little's bigeasyliberal is either a liar or is simply ignorant. Or both. Let's see what Dr. Richard Lindzen has to say. Oh, and yes he's a highly esteemed member of climate science. He by the way just one of hundreds in science who believe this way.

From: Trax
28-Nov-17

Trax's Link
More from Dr. Lindzen

From: Trax
28-Nov-17
The Chicken Little religion of anthropogenic global warming has become nothing more than Scientology at its very worst. Laughable and pathetic. The blind and dumb sheep are so easily led though. They've been trained to cherry pick their attention to only what serves leftist political agenda and ignore all in science who do not suck from the same teat. Classic, ignoring science and then claiming science! Dilly dilly!

From: bigeasygator
28-Nov-17
Please show me where Dr. Lindzen has challenged and questioned the data sets and any manipulation of them? What Dr. Lindzen maintains is essentially that the Earth is warming, CO2 is contributing...but he's not convinced this is a bad thing and this may be a good thing. Like I've said all along, the predictions of how extreme AGW turns out to be are certainly open for debate and challenge and the chicken littles among the world are no more credible than the 1% of climate scientists that believe AGW isn't a thing.

From: Trax
28-Nov-17
Dr. Lindzen has repeatedly called the models used by the Chicken Little's as junk. Yes, he has testified to Congress and the House of Commons making it clear global temps have risen and man is partially responsible. He then went on to testify that the amount of that rise is negligible and of no threat to anyone. He then went on to crucify Dr. James Hansen who represented the Candyland brigade to the point where Hansen would never face Lindzen again.

"Lindzen has criticized the scientific consensus on global climate change, pointing out that scientists are just as liable to err when the science appears to point in just one direction. He drew an analogy in 1996 between the consensus in the early and mid-twentieth century on eugenics and the current consensus about global warming.

We're talking of a few tenths of a degree change in temperature. None of it in the last eight years, by the way. And if we had warming, it should be accomplished by less storminess. But because the temperature itself is so unspectacular, we have developed all sorts of fear of prospect scenarios – of flooding, of plague, of increased storminess when the physics says we should see less.

I think it's mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves.

In a 2009 editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Lindzen said that the earth was just emerging from the "Little Ice Age" in the 19th century and says that it is "not surprising" to see warming after that. He goes on to state that the IPCC claims were

based on the weak argument that the current models used by the IPCC couldn't reproduce the warming from about 1978 to 1998 without some forcing, and that the only forcing that they could think of was man. Even this argument assumes that these models adequately deal with natural internal variability—that is, such naturally occurring cycles as El Niño, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, etc.

Yet articles from major modeling centers acknowledged that the failure of these models to anticipate the absence of warming for the past dozen years was due to the failure of these models to account for this natural internal variability. Thus even the basis for the weak IPCC argument for anthropogenic climate change was shown to be false."

There's a ton more just from Lindzen but bottom line he laughs at the Chicken Little clowns and their political agenda. He is one of hundreds of esteemed members of science that do. Hundreds more don't dare because their nut isn't cracked yet, if they spoke the truth their careers could be terminated and they shunned. The Chicken Little's can't touch those established like Lindzen. They can speak freely.

From: gadan
28-Nov-17
bigeasygator,

1. GW scientists are motivated to perpetuate their message because they are paid by grants, grants that continue only if there is a problem with GW. That's categorically false. That is called a logical fallacy, big. Saying something is not true does not make it so. Most climate scientists are linked to universities, universities that got and continue to get more grant money to prove their supposition. One of the very first scandals was perpetuated by a professor at Penn State (shame as I am a PS Lions fan) who cooked the books.

"3. The GW community has been exposed with 6 MAJOR scandals where they twisted data or used skewed sources for data. There are many more than the 6. No, there aren't." Please see my previous post on why and how data gets corrected in order to provide more accurate analysis. The fact that people don't understand how good science works does not constitute a scandal. Attached is a fact check of one of these more recent scandals I'm sure you are alluding to. In this case, data was adjusted to account for the fact that it was collected from two different sources over time (in this case, ocean temperature readings from ships and temperature readings from buoys). The sources collect data in different ways which results in differences in the data set. This needs to be corrected in order to have a meaningful common set of data (using assumptions that are articulated, justified, and peer reviewed). This "twisting" of data concept is a big nothingburger and anyone with a reasonable understanding of data analysis gets this -- which is why these points only really seem to be brought up by politicians and individuals outside of the scientific community. Well, I am not a climate scientist but I am a Laboratory Director(chemist) and know full well the motivations behind how data can be reported. While I provide a service linked to sales and which can be readily observed in the form of testable, repeatable data, climate science does not. It is all based on suppositions, and the claims in the NOAA report you reference don't even make an argument for why buoy data is more accurate than ship data or what data the new data was measured against. This is the same kind of nonsense they tried to do with ozone holes over the poles, ice qtys, and polar bears. They are starting with a presupposition that the planet is warming and then looking for evidence that it is. That may be a good way to keep the grant spigot open but it not good science.

One of the most annoying objections I have with these GW scientists is not just their unwillingness to honestly report the data but leaving entire and profound variables out. Sea levels are frequently sited as an effect of GW....the seas rise as ice melts....or so they say. They never take into account the billions of cubic yards of silt and debris deposited by rivers into the oceans each year, or lava flows. Also, they don't include solar flare activity. These are not included but not by accident. There is an agenda here and it involves grant money and liberal wackadoodle ideology.

From: bigeasygator
28-Nov-17

bigeasygator's Link
Professors pay is a very managed process at universities. Universities are very structured and limited as to how they pay professors, and professors salaries do not come from grants. As a scientist, you should know that the last place to work if you actually want to make money is as a university researcher. I’m assuming you’re referring to David Mann and the debunked scandal of Climategate. As for his salary, it’s public record and it is fixed. Professors are not allowed to supplement their salary with grant money. The NSF and the NIH does not have an agenda it is pushing with respect to climate change. Science and research seeks to understand and grants are never awarded with the expectation that a hypothesis being investigated will be right or wrong.

And there’s plenty of literature out there that explains the difference between buoy temperature and ship measurements, how each are recorded, why one is more accurate than the other, and how data is corrected between the two. Just because it isn’t in the article I provided doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

Also saying variables like solar activity are ignored in understanding the causes and effects of global warming is flat out false. Also, sedimentation and plate tectonics certainly impacts sea level rise - but I fail to see how it correlates to any sea level rise resulting from global warming, which is probably why it’s ignored in climate models.

From: bigeasygator
28-Nov-17

bigeasygator's Link
Again, with respect to motivation, this video sums up pretty much every scientist I know. It’s not about the money.

From: Bownarrow
28-Nov-17
Nav: I'm assuming that's not a serious question? In case it is, my answer is that fossil fuels are direct contributors to air and water quality degradation. Is that controversial? Fly into Mexico City or Xingtai if you don't agree. That smog comes from cars. I don't think those that are skeptics or believers are going to be persuaded by internet banter. I get the sense that most don't even read the arguments presented by the opposing side. My question is: Why would any hunter not champion a cause that promotes clean air or water? It does not take your "cited" rocket scientists to know burning fossil fuels is bad for the air and water. If you don't believe me leave your car running and hang out in your garage. Burning gas creates poison, and any country boy can tell you that. Most of us believe the atmosphere is limited in size and so we should do what we can to keep it clean-in fact, some of us believe Jesus requires us to be stewards of it. Someone made the statement that anti-fossil fuel is anti-american. Take your crazy pills. American technology is continuing to develop alternative energy that creates clean energy and that is an american competitive advantage. I would argue reliance on fossil fuels puts us at a marked competitive disadvantage in the long-run, but that's another post.

From: bad karma
28-Nov-17
Do you drive an automobile? Heat your house? Use items delivered by truck? If so, quit doing all of those things to promote cleaner air and water. The issue, which entirely too many are simply incapable of understanding, is that economics and the ability to actually have and run an economy are important factors. If gas goes up to $15/gallon, or electricity costs triple, our standards of living go in the dumpster. And you can't tow a horse trailer with a Prius.

Good grief. It seems too much to require thought from some people.

From: Bownarrow
28-Nov-17
Bad: Yes, I drive an automobile. And heat my house, etc. That's not what we are talking about in this discussion. We are talking about whether burning fossil fuels creates harmful effects on the environments. As you would say, good grief. The issue you raise is whether it is economically feasible to switch away from fossil fuels; that is a different discussion. "Good grief." I would argue that we are in a period of phased-out fossil fuel use and moving towards cleaner alternatives, in part because we are a rich country that won't put up with pollution. As far as hauling a horse tailor, Elon Musk might have a solution for you soon. To quote a really smart guy: "It seems too much to require thought from some people."

From: TD
29-Nov-17
Wake me up when you can provide a solution.... not just nag people telling them they are the ones that have to "change" and live a different lifestyle. When "alternative" becomes "reliable + economically competitive" it will win out. Every time. Easy. It's happened in virtually every aspect of American life. Just look at lithium batteries in just the last few years. More fuel efficient vehicles, better HIVAC, etc, etc. Some need to get a grip.... the US is about the cleanest industrial nations on earth per GNP. Telling somebody they need to give up their truck and trailer and annual elk hunts so as to not burn up the planet is ignorant. No. I'm going elk hunting. You should to. Change your life in the right direction... something that will actually enrich it....

It is more likely than not there is some climate change, good grief there has never been a point in time there hasn't been. Yeah, might say we have been warming kinda.... Glacially. Pretty major changes all along the trail that in NO POSSIBLE WAY can be attributed to man, such as the Medieval Warm Period. That some wave off as only a "localized" event (pretty much the entire Atlantic...) and yet will skip mentioning that in the face of their Poster Boy Polar Bear Arctic ice melt....not a peep that Antarctic ice is increasing.... huh... localized I guess.

WRT the gorbal warming cabal...... ALWAYS ignoring the Mann debacle, the Hockey Stick Bull Shit (which PROVES they are not beyond knowingly lying to the public) the OFFICIAL UN Climatology study (done by a high school student) predicting the Himalayan glaciers would be gone, oh, about now.... .... and please add in ALL those multi annual dire modeling predictions for the last couple decades that have FAILED MISERABLY to meet their forecasted disasters, the VAST majority of predictions WRONG (wanna put money on what side they error?), but trust em on this next one.... it's all because they had to "modify" the "data", not because their model is based on horse crap. How much horse crap does one have to swallow? I'm usually done the first time they out and out lie to my face. Some are more forgiving I guess if it's what they want to hear. Long as you're good with your PC Peers....

Glunt nailed it once again.... and bears repeating....

"Honest, its just a coincidence that the solution for global warming is less freedom and higher taxes." Amazing how that all works.... and who has their places set at the slop trough....

You want to give full unquestioned faith..... fine. But first you owe it to yourself to take a close look at those who are the strongest promoters of the Faith/Church.... the Gore's, the DeCaprio's, etc......and look at how they live their lives.... the Elitists... now tell me how much they really believe in their own BS.... or that the BS is meant for other people..... either way the BS smells the same....

29-Nov-17

Spike Bull 's Link
For fun!

From: Amoebus
29-Nov-17
TD - "Telling somebody they need to give up their truck and trailer and annual elk hunts so as to not burn up the planet is ignorant."

Who said that?

From: bad karma
29-Nov-17
Oh, The electric car. At several times the price, plus the burning of fossil fuel at a power plant, and with the actual losses that must occur from transmission, distribution and charging. Plus, you're not going to charge the vehicle 20 miles in on a dirt road, nor be able to take a cross country trip. I'm an electrical engineer by undergrad degree, dude. Don't think you can just wave off the laws of physics. And at $60k for a Ford F-250, only coke dealers and Hollywood hypocrites could afford the higher prices of the coal powered electric trucks.

You have to factor economics in any decision. Well, you do if you're not basing the decision on emotion.

From: gadan
29-Nov-17
bigeasygator,

"Professors pay is a very managed process at universities. Universities are very structured and limited ..." Oh, don't be so obtuse! The grant money goes to the university which in turn goes to fund entire departments! It allows department heads to hire additional researchers, buy equipment, build out space, take trips around the world, pay graduate students, and all sorts of things....including give raises to these power hungry 'scientists'. Grant money is like a gift card for a university and they exploit the living daylights out of it. "And there’s plenty of literature out there that explains the difference between buoy temperature and ship measurements, how each are recorded, why one is more accurate than the other, and how data is corrected between the two. Just because it isn’t in the article I provided doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist." No, there is not 'plenty of literature out there'. The article, if it was worth anything, would have referenced it, and certainly would have inferred what baseline they used to measure the changed data against. That's the least they could have done to be considered legitimate. They play the same games with this data as they have been caught doing other times....choose the data that best fits the narrative. Hockey Stick graph ring any bells? That was a blatant attempt at manipulating the data to fit their supposition and they got caught.

"Also saying variables like solar activity are ignored in understanding the causes and effects of global warming is flat out false. Also, sedimentation and plate tectonics certainly impacts sea level rise - but I fail to see how it correlates to any sea level rise resulting from global warming, which is probably why it’s ignored in climate models." Well, of course you fail to see, that is why you have been hoodwinked by every charm and whim of the hysteria surrounding the movement. Let me explain why deposited sediment should be counted as a variable. Take a full glass of milk and drop a few marbles into it....what happens? You are so quick to embrace the GW claims that you don't even question what motivates those that are perpetuating the lies. Good grief, Al Gore put out a movie full of lies and gets a nobel peace prize. Something is amiss.

From: gadan
29-Nov-17
And here is something else to consider for those proposing electricity as the answer, that electricity also comes at a significant environmental cost, either for burning more fuel to generate the electricity or mining the minerals (Lithium/cadmium/lead/etc) to make the batteries. I think there is room for developing alternative energy sources but there is also room for making cheaper fossil fuels work too. Wind mills are costly and damaging, right now there is a lithium shortage and prices skyrocketing each year, and the development of new technologies to replace what is being taken down is moving too slow. We want to grow our economy but the resources have to be there. As a chemist with a polymer background, I know that everything, not just fuel, is crude based. The plastic in, on, and around everything, adhesives, paints and coatings, medical devices, lubricants, inks, heck even a huge percentage of your bow is crude based(the epoxy resin and amine cureatives, paint, and plastic parts) are all crude based. I think we should recycle as much as possible and believe it a sensible thing for municipalities to provide that opportunity.

From: bigeasygator
29-Nov-17

bigeasygator's Link
Dan, I work for a major oil company. I have more to lose than just about anybody on this board if the most dire proclamations with respext to AGW come true. It has nothing to do with “charm” associated with their message. It has everything to do with the mountains of scientific evidence which are becoming far to large to ignore.

And yes, there is plenty of literature that describes how and why sea temperatures were adjusted by NOAA. Again, you don’t have to look far to find plenty of other sources with even more detail on the treatment of temperature data from ships and buoys. I’m happy to link to plenty more of you need me to.

And no, you did not describe how AGW relates to sedimentation. You described how sedimentation impacts sea level rise, which I’m more than familiar with. Other factors impact sea level rise - plate tectonics, subsidence, sedimentation, storms, currents, etc. climate scientists are not studying the effect of these variables. Sedimentation is in no way shape or form relates to climate.

From: bigeasygator
29-Nov-17

bigeasygator's Link
More on the NOAA non-scandal.

From: bigeasygator
29-Nov-17

bigeasygator's Link
If you want the full paper from Hausfather on the analysis of the differences and changes to the data sets and why they make sense, here you go.

From: bigeasygator
29-Nov-17

bigeasygator's Link
Here it from Hausfather's mouth himself. Just let me know how much more literature you need.

From: Gray Ghost
29-Nov-17
BEG,

You should know by now that nobody, here, reads links that are contrary to their predisposed biased positions. They'd rather argue from a position of ignorance.

Matt

From: bigeasygator
29-Nov-17

bigeasygator's Link
Here's the work that NOAA did and their methodology for adjusting the datasets.

From: bigeasygator
29-Nov-17

bigeasygator's Link
I know, Matt. I figured I could at least challenge the notion that "No, there is not 'plenty of literature out there'" even if no one will read it and it won't change their minds. Be nice for someone to at least concede that point, though I'm not holding my breath.

Here's NOAA's original analysis with the updated dataset in question.

From: DL
29-Nov-17
BEG do you work out in the gulf on a rig? Sorry change of subject.

From: bigeasygator
29-Nov-17
Not technically. I work in our office in New Orleans supporting operations on the platforms and rigs out in the Gulf of Mexico. In the earlier part of my career I spent quite a bit of time out on the platforms learning and supporting the operations at the "coal face" so to speak. In more recent roles, I still take trips offshore in assurance and audit type roles and as a bit of leadership visibility, but these happen far less frequently than when I was a younger engineer.

From: HA/KS
29-Nov-17

HA/KS's Link
"Global warming has not accelerated temperature rise in the bulk atmosphere in more than two decades, according to a new study funded by the Department of Energy."

From: Woods Walker
29-Nov-17
Soooo.....what's the bullsh*t line today, is it global warming, or climate change?

Either way, the earth has been doing BOTH, plus COOLING for over 4 BILLION years. Should we have a clean place to live? Absolutely. But the climate? That ain't up to us. It's the SUN. Always has been and always will be. The rest of this climate stuff is made up computer models sanctioned by the capitalism hating new communists of the day......GREENIES and big government lying hacks.

And they can all go suck on my exhaust pipe. I know bullshit when I see it.

From: HA/KS
29-Nov-17
"for over 400 BILLION years." Hmmm. Math much?

From: Woods Walker
29-Nov-17
OOPS! FOUR!

But the point is still valid!

From: Woods Walker
29-Nov-17

Woods Walker's embedded Photo
Woods Walker's embedded Photo

From: HA/KS
29-Nov-17
If it is 4 Billion, the earth is currently far below the average temperature over that time.

From: TD
30-Nov-17
I read a couple of the links. Essentially they were fine when the data showed what they literally wanted them to show. When that very data collection method, they were fine with before, started showing less than they wanted...... groups of people poured time and money into justifying a reason they needed to "adjust" the data. Adjustments that were NOT done previously, but "necessary" now. Apparently reasons to adjust "newly discovered". OK. I'll even ignore the Mann BS and others when "scientists" were actually caught manipulating the data (or outright fabricating) to fit what they wanted. Again... a wave of the hand.... disremember that please...... was all a misunderstanding....

Fine. I'm usually fine when people come back for whatever reason and adjust their OWN data to more closely fit the outcome they want. Honest...... I'm.... fine with it....... really....

But I don't recall anyone addressing the fact that the VAST majority of these very same people had forecast models ten+ years ago that are not even in the neighborhood of current reality. But...... everybody is just fine with that too I guess.... many of them the same people adjusting the numbers now.

Thirdly...... I think the majority here have STATED CLEARLY, yeah, there's some "climate change" going on. Has been since time began.... and WILL ALWAYS BE. Entire Continents of glaciers have melted away. Don't recall folks holding services for those that covered the midwest and such, yet "engaged" people are going apoplectic over few tiny ones left melting "proof of global warming!" that are literally don't amount to a single drop in the true glacial river .....

Where they draw the line is the idea that mankind can control it by manipulating his CO2 emissions. CO2. The very stuff we exhale with every breath. (See: energy use) Manipulations BTW based on taking away one persons possessions (and freedoms) and giving it to another person. Mostly from another country. To be determined by a global cabal of Elitists who know what is best for everyone. (trust me....) That will "fix" our planets climate. Change everything. You betcha....

The idea that man is more then a flea of a flea of this earth and pretty much just along for the ride is a shrine to the secular humanism or a new Church celebrating the imagined power of mankind over the universe. Somehow any and all change MUST be caused by man and his inherent evil. He can control the very weather if he doesn't like it. Somebody can change it for him. Well,for a fee.....

The spectacular failing point of all these climate models of doom and gloom, and there have been hundreds of them fail...... they can never take into full account the vast and dynamic forces involved. In scales mankind can mathematically ascribe a number to it..... but cannot truly grasp the scale. The reaction to heat and moisture and winds moving as an earth spins in a vast atmosphere, (huh, we somehow forgot about clouds.... sorry.... we need to adjust our data.... again...) a molten core, the most powerful, unfathomable energy source in the solar system blazing away in a controlled atomic implosion at our doorstep, oceans with their own winds deeper than our mountains are tall, systems of incalculable complexity and power..... but it's mankind that is driving things....... it's man causing climate change....... even as the climate has changed for millennia that man had zero effect.

Sorry. You have data. Then say it's not the right data, you have to "adjust".... then come back multiple times for "corrections". Nope. Too many strikes, too many cries of WOLF that never materialized... credibility is in the dumpster..... a success/accuracy rate in low digits, but say trust me here with this next one.....Not buying it. Go knock on the neighbors door..... they're suckers for anything....

From: Anony Mouse
30-Nov-17
TD...that is exactly why the gorbalists must continually adjust their computer models to fit their assumptions (ass-u-me).

Seems that some missed the content of the climategate emails. Talk about collusion ;0)

Gadan: right on WRT grant monies. BTDT

From: Dirk Diggler
30-Nov-17

Dirk Diggler's Link
A lefty must have pissed off a global warming scientist.

From: bigeasygator
30-Nov-17
Since two people have now linked to the article, let me explain to you all the work of McNider and Christy. There studies are on the troposphere, which extends to 75,000' above the surface of the Earth. The bulk of the conversation as it relates to AGW is on Earth surface temperature readings -- not what is happening in the bulk atmosphere. For a number of reasons, climate scientists discount the anomalies here as it relates to the effects on Earth -- the data record is shorter that surface temperature data, data gathering techniques are not as robust as the surface temperature recordings, what is happening at 18,000' doesn't matter nearly as much as what's happening on the surface of the Earth when it comes to forecasting the impact of climate change. Scientists aren’t suppressing discussion about the mid-troposphere -- they're very aware of the anomaly and they’re actively participating in trying to solve the riddle. That said, they are not suggesting that the question of what’s happening at 18,000 feet discredits the body of climate knowledge they’ve been building on for a century.

I will describe a parallel that hopefully resonates to some of you. In physics a "theory" is a mathematical model based on various assumptions and valid for a limited range of physical conditions. Newton's laws are a mathematical model that is limited to non-relativistic speeds and low gravitational fields, and within those limits it is exceedingly accurate. Even though the Newtonian model wasn't complete and did not describe all physical phenomena accurately, it was still good enough to send a man to the moon. Einstein's theory relativity expanded the range of physical conditions over which the Newton's theory applied -- special relativity expanded it to include high speeds, and general relativity extended it again to include high gravitational fields. Even general relativity is not applicable everywhere because it fails at singularities like the center of black holes. We expect that some future theory (the holy grain of a "unified theory") will extend GR to describe places that are singular in GR.

Bringing it back to McNider and the anomalies of the cooling/warming in the troposphere, just like general relativity, quantum mechanics, or a unified theory isn't necessary to send a man to the moon, having a "unified" climate model that explains what's happening accurately to temperatures in the tropo-, strato-, meso-, thermo-, and exo- spheres isn't necessarily required to describe what's happening to surface temperatures on Earth.

From: Woods Walker
30-Nov-17
WTF????? You should run for congress! You have the gift of talking promiscuously and not actually saying a damn thing!

From: Trax
30-Nov-17

Trax's Link
Dr. Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer who much of Christy's temperature work has been with make it very clear how it is related to AGW. It is the very reason they are doing it. Temperature readings coming from the top of buildings or parking lots in metro areas are less convincing but have always been welcomed in Chicken Little models. Your lame attempt to misalign them is laughable. Both have testified to Congress how little temperature change we have seen and how little man has to do with it. On top of that, what little difference we can make even if we are cooking the planet. Which we're clearly not doing. Becoming more clear everyday. Even the Chicken Little's have to (very quietly) admit things are not going as planned...

From: Woods Walker
30-Nov-17
Words are like camo. They are used to hide something but the smell of bullshit still stands out.

From: bigeasygator
30-Nov-17
Please tell me how the anomalies seen in the predictions of mid-tropospheric warming relate to the effects of AGW? If your answer is essentially "well, they can't model this so they can't model anything," don't bother. As far as the location of temperature sensors...again, this is why data is adjusted, to account for things like time of day, urban heat sinks, etc. Saying they are less convincing is the only thing that is laughable. And did you even read the link that you posted?? Or do you just stop at the headline?

30-Nov-17

Spike Bull 's Link
Much of their argument revolves around "adjusted" information that they chart. Look closely at the charts the left puts forward which they say shows warming when co2 increases. The warming actually occurs BEFORE the co2 increases!

Check this link. It displays classic commie logic, global warming is freezing their grapes!

From: bigeasygator
30-Nov-17

bigeasygator's Link
Ahhhh yes...the scientific powerhouse known as "Breitbart." Thanks for that link Spike. And for the record, what folks are describing in that article (extreme cold, intense rainfall events) is still called weather...not climate. You can link to an article describing the difference of each from some real scientists at NASA. It is kind of funny that the Breitbart article, in trying to downplay weather extremes as if they are somehow related to climate change (they aren't necessarily), actually gives evidence in support of climate change (of the seven coldest winters, only one happened after WWII).

From: Trax
30-Nov-17
Oh no, I read it. This was a Chicken Little response to the lack of warming. Warmed over. Oh they still tell us it's coming. They now need to soften the blow a bit as reality isn't playing into their predictions. Just like they told us we'd be ripped apart by hurricanes and strange storms by now yet we've had about a dozen year spell nearly hurricane and "strange storm" hiatus.

Your question is for Dr's Christy and Spencer. They are esteemed members of related science and you are a pawn with a bell around your neck. Just a few excerpts from Dr. Christy.... "This is the 1988 predictions by James Hansen...here's what really happened in the world [shows UAH and RSS lower troposphere temperature data]. And you see that even the actual temperatures fell far below even the scenario that didn't happen (Hansen Scenario C)."

"what we found from real satellite observations...is that it takes a lot of energy to make the temperature go up because of all the things in the climate system that work against a warming effect."

"The hockey stick's author was the same IPCC lead author who in my opinion worked with a small group of cohorts and misrepresented the temperature record of the past 1,000 years by promoting his own result"

"Evidence was presented by Dr. Ross McKitrick and others indicated the popular surface temperature data sets were affected by warming not likely to be caused by greenhouse gases."

"In this sense yes [1970s cooling predictions were similar to current warming predictions], our ignorance about the climate system is just enormous"

"you're looking at most at a tenth of a degree [reduction in global temperature] after 100 years [if USA imposes CO2 limits]" "I can say that there certainly hasn't been a warming of global temperatures since 1998.

"You know, by looking at the evidence - we have satellites and so on - we do not see any dramatic or catastrophic changes at all."

"We look at the temperature of the bulk of the atmosphere, so it’s not confused by what might happen in cities and the countryside and so on at the surface. And by looking at the bulk of the atmosphere where the greenhouse effect is supposed [to] have its greatest effect, we just don’t see much happening at all."

"What we’ve found is that the rate of warming due to carbon dioxide must be pretty small because the Earth is not warming very rapidly. […] I would guess on the order of 1 degree per century. […] I don’t think it’s something to be alarmed at."

"you look for a large global number in the heat storage of the atmosphere and ocean and that is rising slowly but it is not rising catastrophically or dramatically and certainly does not point to a high sensitivity of the climate to things like GHGs"

All from Dr. Christy mostly taken from his testimony to Congress or the House of Commons. He of course is speaking in lay mans terms for them, he has all the technical jargon and data in the world to back it up. JUST, form Dr. Christy. Hundreds more involved in the science who also do not believe man is cooking the planet in any way.

From: bigeasygator
30-Nov-17
Well, you did exactly what I told you not to bother doing, Trax. Nice try, though.

From: gadan
30-Nov-17
BEG

"Dan, I work for a major oil company. I have more to lose than just about anybody on this board if the most dire proclamations with respext to AGW come true. It has nothing to do with “charm” associated with their message. It has everything to do with the mountains of scientific evidence which are becoming far to large to ignore."

Despite what you have to lose, the data has shown to be less than reliable, at times totally fabricated, and many times 'adjusted' to fit the narrative.

"And yes, there is plenty of literature that describes how and why sea temperatures were adjusted by NOAA. Again, you don’t have to look far to find plenty of other sources with even more detail on the treatment of temperature data from ships and buoys. I’m happy to link to plenty more of you need me to."

Thank you for the link, yeah, a both-feet-in-the-GW-warming bathtub source. I read them carefully, and if you did critically, you'd notice some common tactics used by people trying to make a point. You should look at these reports like you look at a prospectus, see what's not being said.

"And no, you did not describe how AGW relates to sedimentation. You described how sedimentation impacts sea level rise, which I’m more than familiar with."

I'll give you this one. Correct, but GWarmers have long associated GW with melting ice and subsequent sea level increases........w/o taking into account sedimentation! So my argument still stands. "Other factors impact sea level rise - plate tectonics, subsidence, sedimentation, storms, currents, etc. climate scientists are not studying the effect of these variables. Sedimentation is in no way shape or form relates to climate."

False....see above.

From: Shuteye
30-Nov-17
I won't be here in 100 years but If when I die I go to the outskirts of Heaven, I will be watching to see who was correct.

From: bigeasygator
30-Nov-17
I'll grant you that glacial runoff/ice melt does cause sedimentation and so the statement that it is "in no way shape or form" related to climate is a step too far. My guess (I have seen nothing scientific to back it up, so if you have any sources that describe the extent of sedimentation related to ice melting I'd love to see it) is that it is not included because it is more on the order of dropping a grain of sand into a glass of water, not a marble. You lumped sedimentation in with lava flows (which I still see no connection to climate change other than potentially masking the effects of warming related sea level rise) and so I considered sedimentation generically, not the portion related to global warming.

From: Trax
30-Nov-17
All you want to do bigeasyliberal is argue with yourself and in the process maybe attract and impress a few more blind and dumb sheep. You don't want to hear from those in science, such as Dr. Lindzen or Christy who do not advance your agenda. It isn't just that Chicken Little's models are garbage, their whole attempt is garbage. "Global Warming" is nothing more than a political agenda to some in that camp and a religion to others. Then come the blind and dumb sheep. Your a perfect example bigeasyliberal, you have no interest in hearing from science on the issue. Only the cherry picked "science" that promotes the leftist narrative. Classic!

From: bigeasygator
30-Nov-17

bigeasygator's Link
"You know, by looking at the evidence - we have satellites and so on - we do not see any dramatic or catastrophic changes at all."

"We look at the temperature of the bulk of the atmosphere, so it’s not confused by what might happen in cities and the countryside and so on at the surface. And by looking at the bulk of the atmosphere where the greenhouse effect is supposed [to] have its greatest effect, we just don’t see much happening at all."

"what we found from real satellite observations...is that it takes a lot of energy to make the temperature go up because of all the things in the climate system that work against a warming effect."

I do listen to the science, Trax. There's a reason Dr. Christy's work isn't given much weight in the climate science community (actually, there are a few of them). The link is to an article that discusses why the statements above should be taken with a huge grain of salt. It is a very clear, concise description of how "temperatures" are taken with satellites and the benefits and drawbacks to the use of them. It is worth a read, but I'll try to summarize a few things.

The work that Christy is speaking to is on the bulk atmosphere, which relies on the use of satellites. Unlike a thermometer, which sits at a specific location providing a direct measurement, satellites work very differently. They are located remotely -- literally hundreds of miles from the location they are measuring data on and they do not measure temperature directly (they attempt to measure radiation at different levels of the atmosphere and convert this radiation into a temperature). These methods can provide for a broader range of data -- ie, it is possible to derive (again, derive, not measure) temperature across a wide area, unlike a thermometer which will only give you data in the spot it is located. You can measure everywhere at once so-to-speak. This makes satellites a powerful tool, particularly where there are voids from in-situ data. But to say or hint that satellites a more accurate or a preferred method is just not true. The data relies on derivations of radiance to temperature, the measurement is not in-situ, and there are plenty of influences on the strength (and thus the accuracy) of the signal reaching the satellite (anybody ever see a satellite TV lose its signal in a storm?). Most people should quickly recognize that trying to measure something, everywhere, at once, from a remote location, is likely to create some challenges and some accuracy issues.

Lastly, as the article points out "we really should be focusing on the changes in the ocean heat content. That is where about ~90% of the heat goes. Satellite altimeter monitoring is an essential part of that assessment and it is global. Tropospheric heating is a much smaller component and surface temperatures measure only a minuscule amount of the heat." Again, predicting tropospheric heating (or the lack there of) is not only an imperfect science that relies on a limited data set (in both time, and accuracy), it is essentially a red herring when it comes to what matters with respect to climate change and global warming.

Again, the article is a short, great read on the measurement techniques in question.

From: Trax
30-Nov-17
So what you are saying is the Chicken Little members of science ignore those esteemed members (numbering in the hundreds, thousands if you include those that must keep quiet or lose their job or status) that do not agree with them. They don't just ignore them, they ignore science. Yeah, James Hansen tried to sell his ideas to Congress too, unfortunately for him Richard Lindzen was also sitting there and essentially stuck his scientific boot in his eye.

It has become very clear, man is not in any way cooking the planet. Now to what degree we are influencing climate is the debate. Remember, the Algorians tried to tell us the debate was over. They shut their eyes and ears to science. That's because they know if they look to science they won't be able to sell their political agenda.

From: bigeasygator
30-Nov-17
"So what you are saying is the Chicken Little members of science ignore those esteemed members that do not agree with them"

No, what I'm telling you is WHY the consensus of climate scientists do not put much weight into the work of these "esteemed" members. The only thing that has become very clear is that you don't even listen to the people you hold-up when you make absurd statements like "It It has become very clear, man is NOT IN ANY WAY cooking the planet." People like Lindzen don't deny the planet is warming, and they don't deny humans have a role in it.

From: Trax
30-Nov-17
No bigeasyliberal, YOU don't pay attention to any science that doesn't placate your adopted political agenda OR what I have said.

I have stated clearly that Lindzen and Christy have testified they believe man is influencing climate, but to a NEGLIGIBLE degree. The main point they make and I want to make is the Chicken Little's are claiming man is cooking the planet, that we are brewing a climate calamity. NOTHING is further from the truth.

You can't really believe there is a 97% consensus that man is cooking the planet? That would simply make you a blind and dumb sheep. That has been debunked many times over. Dozens of climate scientists have laughed at that including Lindzen and Christy. There is a consensus that man has influenced climate. ZERO consensus that it is in any way a significant amount.

From: bigeasygator
30-Nov-17
I do pay attention to the science, Trax. I understand the merits and limitations of all of the various datasets, analysis techniques, and climate prediction. I understand why the views of Lindgren and Christy represent the vast minority of climate scientists.

The 97% number gets misconstrued. It reflects the climate scientists who believe humans play a clear role in warming the planet and the warming is of some significance. The alarmists of the group represent a relatively small fraction of that number. It ends up being something like 60-70% of climate scientists believe humans influence on climate is at least equal to the natural fluctutions in climate. The other 20% or so few humans play a meaningful part, but that natural causes may still be bigger.

What never gets talked about is that other 2-3%. Every study that has looked at the “consensus” among climate scientists (Anderegg, Cook, Doran, Oreskes, you name it) is pretty consistent on that 2-3%. That 2-3% reflect the views of folks like Christy and Lindgren and yourself who feel human contribution to climate change is insignificant and negligible. If I were part of that 3% I would laugh too. Funny how that never gets brought up...

From: Trax
30-Nov-17
Oh sure, back to Doran and Anderegg. The '97% consensus' article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it."

- Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA) The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook's (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% "consensus" study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook's study is an embarrassment to science.

Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts [brief summaries] of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (humans are the primary cause). A later analysis by Legates et al. (2013) found there to be only 41 papers (0.3%) that supported this definition. Cook et al.'s methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing the 97% consensus, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. The second part of Cook et al. (2013), the author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with the abstract ratings.

Methodology: The data (11,944 abstracts) used in Cook et al. (2013) came from searching the Web of Science database for results containing the key phrases "global warming" or "global climate change" regardless of what type of publication they appeared in or the context those phrases were used. Only a small minority of these were actually published in climate science journals, instead the publications included ones like the International Journal Of Vehicle Design, Livestock Science and Waste Management. The results were not even analyzed by scientists but rather amateur environmental activists with credentials such as "zoo volunteer" (co-author Bärbel Winkler) and "scuba diving" (co-author Rob Painting) who were chosen by the lead author John Cook (a cartoonist) because they all comment on his deceptively named, partisan alarmist blog 'Skeptical Science' and could be counted on to push his manufactured talking point.

Peer-review: Cook et al. (2013) was published in the journal Environmental Research Letters (ERL) which conveniently has multiple outspoken alarmist scientists on its editorial board (e.g. Peter Gleick and Stefan Rahmstorf) where the paper likely received substandard "pal-review" instead of the more rigorous peer-review.

Update: The paper has since been refuted five times in the scholarly literature by Legates et al. (2013), Tol (2014a), Tol (2014b), Dean (2015) and Tol (2016).

* All the other "97% consensus" studies: e.g. Doran & Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al. (2010) and Oreskes (2004) have been refuted by peer-review.

From: Trax
30-Nov-17
And a quote about the consensus farce by Dr. Lindzen himself...

"Lindzen on ‘97% consensus’:

Lindzen: “It was the narrative from the beginning. In 1998, [NASA’s James] Hansen made some vague remarks. Newsweek ran a cover that says all scientists agree. Now they never really tell you what they agree on. It is propaganda.”

“So all scientists agree it’s probably warmer now than it was at the end of the Little Ice Age. Almost all Scientists agree that if you add CO2 you will have some warming. Maybe very little warming. But it is propaganda to translate that into it is dangerous and we must reduce CO2 etc.

If you can make an ambiguous remark and you have people who will amplify it ‘they said it not me’ and he response of the political system is to increase your funding, what’s not to like?

If I look through my department, at least half of them keep mum. Just keep on doing your work, trying to figure out how it works.

MIT ‘has just announced that they see this bringing in $300 million bucks. It will support all sorts of things.’"

From: Trax
30-Nov-17
Lindzen himself was outraged he was INCLUDED in a list of Chicken Little scientists who claim man is cooking the planet. He demanded his name be removed. This a shining example of how the Algorians operate.

As has been noted, only ESTABLISHED members of education and science dare question or challenge the Chicken Little's. They risk funding, they risk employment, they risk status. It is lies and fabrications and propaganda and THREATS that is the basis for the Chicken Little argument. Those who do not voice an opinion on the issue are automatically ADDED to the list of Algorian science deniers! The consensus that man is cooking the planet to any noticeable degree is miniscule. Those at the top of this political agenda know better, they know what they are doing with Mikey Mann's hockey stick just one of many examples. They only have to fool so many blind and dumb sheep though. Just so many.....

From: bigeasygator
30-Nov-17
Sigh. Again, I admitted that I don’t agree with the 97%...or at least concede it is misleading from the sense that for those papers that made some sort of mention of AGW, the 97% represents a range of responses that include humans impacting climate some to humans impacting climate a lot. Not all of this 97% believes the most dire predictions and it shouldn’t be conveyed as such.

However, you completely avoided my point. All of those studies are indeed consistent on what percentage of climate scientists are not convinced that humans are impacting the climate. It’s in the range of 3%. Please prove this statement wrong.

From: Trax
01-Dec-17
First of all, there is no 97% you speak of. A totally made up number.

Impacting our climate. I didn't avoid that at all. Like I said, Lindzen and Christy have testified that they believe man has influenced climate. They have also testified that they believe to a miniscule degree to the point of being NEGLIGIBLE. Not even worth talking about. What percentage that is pertinent is what percentage believe man is cooking the planet. That is the number that is being falsified and propagandized. Freeman Dyson also believes man has contributed to climate change. He also mostly agrees with Lindzen and Christy. He is also loudly proclaiming at what a farce the Chicken Little presentation is. He calls the Chicken Little "science" nothing but propaganda. That's because it is.

From: bigeasygator
01-Dec-17
You don’t think it’s relevant that only something like 3% of climate scientists hold the view of folks like Christy and Lindgren? I’d say that’s pretty pertinent to the conversation.

From: Trax
01-Dec-17
The 3% number is not relevant. That's because it's not real. Again, they are counting everyone in science who does not publicly dispute them. That is a huge majority. They CAN'T speak up, they would lose funding, status, or employment. Again, like I said, Lindzen himself was once placed on such a list and then after his outrage was noted his demands to be removed were quietly granted. The science is not all bad, the presentation guided by lies, intimidation, misrepresentation and propaganda that the Chicken Little's use to sell their chicken crap is what's bad. Bottom line is man is not cooking the planet, and the vast majority of those in related science believe this. Most of them can not voice that opinion for reasons mentioned above.

From: bigeasygator
01-Dec-17
“...the vast majority of those in related science believe this. Most of them can not voice that opinion for reasons mentioned above.”

Lol!!! You don’t have a shred of evidence to back up any of those statements. Just stop.

From: gadan
01-Dec-17
Consensus is poor arbiter of truth! I am a scientist and have seen many a theory derailed by a conveniently ignored variable. That is the case with GW theory. Many variables, not all accounted for.

1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in his 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out.

14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'”

15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”

18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

From: bigeasygator
01-Dec-17
None of those examples represents the scientific consensus at the time, Dan. Time will tell if the current majority opinion in the scientific community related to AGW is wrong.

From: Anony Mouse
01-Dec-17
Volcanoes.

Solar cycles.

From: Trax
01-Dec-17
Thanks for biting bigeasyliberal. I used exactly the same formula the Chicken Little's do with their made up consensus. Dr. Judith Curry had a nice little write up about the fabricated 97% and 3%. I'll see if I can find it for you. It also proves nothing, same as the Chicken Little's concerning consensus.

From: Annony Mouse
02-Dec-17

Annony Mouse's Link

From: Annony Mouse
04-Dec-17
Value added content.

A Veneer of Certainty Stoking Climate Alarm

In Private, Climate Scientists Are Much LessCertain than They Tell the Public

From: Annony Mouse
07-Dec-17
Tidalgate! Climate Alarmists Caught Faking Sea Level Rise

Breitbart : Alarmist scientists have been caught red-handed tampering with raw data in order to exaggerate sea level rise.

The raw (unadjusted) data from three Indian Ocean gauges – Aden, Karachi and Mumbai – showed that local sea level trends in the last 140 years had been very gently rising, neutral or negative (ie sea levels had fallen).

But after the evidence had been adjusted by tidal records gatekeepers at the global databank Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) it suddenly showed a sharp and dramatic rise.

The whistle was blown by two Australian scientists Dr. Albert Parker and Dr. Clifford Ollier in a paper for Earth Systems and Environment.

The paper – Is the Sea Level Stable at Aden, Yemen? – examines the discrepancies between raw and adjusted sea level data in Aden, Karachi and Mumbai. Continued.

The gorbalists have to manipulate reality to promote their religious beliefs...

  • Sitka Gear