Bowsite.com

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."

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.

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.

(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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Matt

The Rock

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.

"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.

"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??).

Matt

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

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.

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.

"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.

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

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.

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.

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

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....

Who said that?

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

"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.

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.

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

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

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.

But the point is still valid!

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....

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

Gadan: right on WRT grant monies. BTDT

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.

"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.

"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.

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.

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...

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.

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

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.”

Solar cycles.

A Veneer of Certainty Stoking Climate Alarm

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

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...

The sun is blank, NASA data shows it to be dimming

Just another way to gain control and for certain folks to make a lot of money in the process.