JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

NASA Apollo Astronaut Walter Cunningham says trust in NASA and science has been abused

Four Apollo Astronauts are outspoken skeptics. This includes Buzz Aldrin and Harrison Schmidt (2 of the 12 men who walked on the moon) and Phil Chapman (Apollo 14) and Walter Cunningham (Apollo 7).

Donn F. Eisele, Walter M. Schirra, Jr. and Walter Cunningham.

Walter Cunningham is a fighter pilot and a physicist and was the Lunar Module pilot on the Apollo 7 mission. In a 263 hour mission in October 1968 the three astronauts covered four and a half million miles.

Over forty years later, he describes how the public trust built by the astronauts and technical specialists who put man on the moon has been abused by opportunists. NASA and science has changed.
UPDATE: Ask yourself how hard it would be for the BBC, ABC or New Scientist to have done this interview (and years ago). Cunningham confirms that none of them have ever approached him to ask why he is openly skeptical, which tells you all you need to know about the impartiality of mainstream “journalists”.
* * *
Below are selected snippets of Larry Bell’s interview with Walter Cunningham:
“Those of us fortunate enough to have traveled in space bet our lives on the competence, dedication, and integrity of the science and technology professionals who made our missions possible…In the last twenty years, I have watched the high standards of science being violated by a few influential climate scientists, including some at NASA, while special interest opportunists have abused our public trust.”

“Many of NASA’s retirees have grown increasingly concerned that GISS, a NASA organization located in a midtown Manhattan office building, was allowing its science to be politicized, compromising their credibility. Our concern, beyond damage to the NASA’s exemplary reputation, was damage to their current or former scientists and employees, and even compromising the reputation of science itself.

“We developed a letter to NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden and obtained signatures from seven Apollo astronauts, several former Headquarters managers and Center directors, and 40 former management-level technical specialists. We asked that he restrain NASA from including unproven claims in public releases and on websites. Statements by NASA that man-made carbon dioxide was having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. It is clear that the science is NOT settled.

“James Hansen … was an embarrassment and disgrace to the agency [NASA].

“Understanding global climate and what, if anything, humans can do to affect it are scientific questions that can be answered only by honest science and scientific data. Yet, global warming alarmists invariably try to make their case through rhetoric, dogma, opinion, and emotion.

“Anytime the “evidence” is debatable, we should push for open and honest public debate in an effort to get to the “truth.” Unfortunately, believers in human caused global warming avoid debate like the plague.

“NASA should be at the forefront in the collection of scientific evidence and debunking the current hysteria over human-caused [anthropogenic] global warming [AGW]. Unfortunately, it is becoming just another agency caught up in the politics of global warming, or worse, politicized science.  Advocacy and support for the White House agenda is replacing objective evaluation of data, while scientific data are being ignored in favor of emotions and politics.

“The conflict over AGW has deteriorated into a religious war — a war between true believers in a human-caused global warming problem and nonbelievers…

“Much of this may be due to today’s lowered educational standards in scientific literacy, skepticism and critical thinking. Many people today are unable to distinguish between science and non-science, leaving them vulnerable to the emotional appeal of human caused global warming. Unfortunately, most students today are fed a lot more hype about self-esteem and global warming than real information about history and science. Let’s finally recognize that “self-esteem” is no substitute for common sense, and “indoctrination” is no substitute for education.
Read the full interview at CFACT
Walter Cunningham released the book All-American Boys in 2003:
“Cunningham tells how NASA lost its way and who is responsible. He shares his views on how NASA management has measured up to the reputation they inherited from the Sixties and Seventies – the days of Apollo.”

The All American Boys by Walter Cunningham

Popular Technology has a page on astronauts who are skeptics.
Bruce of Newcastle points out: …the letter from 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts which they sent to the NASA administrator last year objecting to the official position on global warming.
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (114 votes cast)
NASA Apollo Astronaut Walter Cunningham says trust in NASA and science has been abused, 9.1 out of 10 based on 114 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/mpodxlv

262 comments to NASA Apollo Astronaut Walter Cunningham says trust in NASA and science has been abused

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    And it’s a dirty rotten shame! :-(

    NASA once stood for something. But it’s been increasingly obvious that it has no real usefulness — at least that I can see — and is now just another solution without a problem.

    Thank you Walter Cunningham for speaking out. :-)

    Unfortunately I think the right people won’t be listening.

    342

    • #
      Albert

      NASA sells its soul for funding

      162

      • #
        Ace

        No Albert…NASA sells pipe dreams and cheap circus stunts for funding. How many times now have they sent a piddling probe to Mars. Nice trick, it gets tedious after forty years.

        The best Mars probe was British, the Beagle 2, and only hitched a ride on a US orbiter..it would have solved this is-there-isnt-there-life-on-Mars-and-so-what-who-gives-a-monkeys shenanigans with one simple instrument…the way NASA could have decades ago had they really wanted to. .funny that, nobody did explain how the Beagle 2 disappeared without trace.

        22

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Ace,

          I don’t know anything about the Beagle 2 so I can’t comment. However, the NASA Mars exploration is an engineering feat that we ought to respect. My problem is that for all the money spent we get virtually nothing that helps us here on Earth every day. As I said, a solution without a problem.

          I happened to be spending a lot of time yesterday in a hospital waiting room and an issue of Scientific American was sitting there beckoning to me to pick it up in lieu of the usual drivil. So I went through it. Unfortunately the only thing worth my time was an article about the discovery of the Higgs Boson and the Higgs field, all enabled by the 50 plus billion dollars spent on the 17 mile long particle accelerator buried under Cern, Switzerland. It’s fascinating stuff. But again, billions spent that are so badly needed to fix other more pressing problems than the nature of the universe. The engineering accomplishment is spectacular if you have any insight into how such a thing must work. But it’s yet another solution without a problem.

          I rest my case.

          PS:

          I remember when there were alarmists crying that the Cern accelerator would be so powerful that it could start something that could swallow up the whole planet. Sound familiar?

          20

        • #
          Geoffrey Cousens

          Was it going to Phobos?

          00

  • #
    Don

    National Association of Scientific Alarmist

    131

  • #
    MadJak

    I guess it’s become the rule anywhere. Beware of doing something unique and doing it successfully, the freeloaders will come in and take over.

    There are two groups of people – innovators and imitators. Whens someone successfully innovates, the parasites find their way in to carve out their own percentage.

    Through sheer weight of numbers the imitators will ensure they get rewarded beyond that of the innovators.

    221

    • #
      Ace

      How is anything NASA has done unique…even in its glory days?
      They were good, but they werent unique, they just had more money poured into them than others.

      09

      • #

        Putting people on the moon and returning them safely has been done by who other than NASA?

        Doesn’t that make NASA unique?

        100

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Bernd,

          The answer of course is a resounding, yes! But more than that it was a project that united the whole nation and much of the rest of the world behind a common goal. I went through those years and I know what it was like. Everyone was glued to a radio or TV when Apollo 13 went wrong, fingers crossed or praying for a safe end to it. It was one of those heart stopping, gut wrenching things that compels your attention. But those days are over. The space shuttle never achieved that status. And NASA, thanks to its puppet masters, has given up on even the one thing I think they should have kept up, manned orbital flight. We can’t even deliver our own astronauts and bring them home again as we continue to participate in the International Space Station. To me this is the ultimate kind of betrayal — go risk your life for science and the glory of America but depend on someone else for a ride to and from work. And that someone else is looking increasingly unreliable.

          If not for the Air Force keeping their unmanned space capability we couldn’t even keep relying on the communication satellites that now handle international commercial traffic of all kinds.

          In the end, NASA went the way of many organizations and started to serve itself instead of a higher goal.

          10

        • #
          Ace

          MONEY Bernd…MONEY did it….most of the priciple engineers were German and British anyway.

          00

  • #
    Manfred

    Funding and inspiration displaced, a culture of safety becomes orientated to cultural safety, and an outward, outbound vision becomes nearly politically incorrect, NASA – not unlike the rest of us – has been adversely influenced by the Ministry-of-We-Know-Best, only with the added complication of being metaphorically ‘Lost in Space’.

    Looking at current NASA missions, one of the latest The Mars Atmosphere and Volatile EvolutioN (MAVEN) mission ‘will explore the Red Planet’s upper atmosphere, ionosphere and interactions with the sun and solar wind to determine the role that loss of volatile compounds—such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and water—from the Mars atmosphere to space has played through time, giving insight into the history of Mars’ atmosphere and climate, liquid water, and planetary habitability’.

    Here’s the funding bite…

    ‘”MAVEN will help us understand the climate history, which is the history of habitability.” said Bruce Jakosky, planetary scientist at the University of Colorado Boulder and MAVEN’s principal investigator…’

    Climate ‘scientist’ on the MAVEN team? One might be forgiven for thinking that they’re like the political officer of the USSR /sarc.

    NASA has achieved, is achieving and will continue to achieve utterly stupendous, awe inspiring work with the skills and dedication of the brightest and despite the lead weight of the moment. Setting Curiosity down on Mars was a magnificent, jaw dropping achievement by engineers, designers and scientists of the moment. I doubt there were too many sniveling climate modellers about.

    NASA like the rest of us, will rid itself of the end stage disease of Green infected political correctness that masquerades as climate ‘science’.

    http://www.nasa.gov/content/maven-eyes-mars-as-launch-preps-begin/#.UgqUuURxBcx

    111

    • #

      “NASA like the rest of us, will rid itself of the end stage disease of Green infected political correctness that masquerades as climate ‘science’.”

      I am not so sure of that. I worked as a contract software specialist for a NASA Flight Research Center during the first half of the 1990′s. My early focus was creating high performance real time graphics for their many experimental aircraft. One of my duties was to produce synthetic heads up displays and connect them to the hardware in the loop simulators for use by the test pilots. In the process of doing the work, I discovered why a test pilot nearly created his memorial crater in the near by desert.

      I had discovered a “feature” in the avionics software that guaranteed the heads up display would lie to the pilot under the exact circumstances that nearly killed the test pilot and destroyed an $80 million fighter. There was an RC filter on the data path he was depending upon. That filter required him to wait the better part of ten seconds for it to settle to the truth. He moved much too fast. Keep in mind this was one of the hottest fighter aircraft at the time.

      I had inquired of the people responsible for the avionics software if there was such a filter in the software. They said no – absolutely not. However, they sent me a critical portion of the software necessary for me to create a correct simulation of it. In it, I found the code that provided the exact RC time constant I had predicted. I documented the incident in detail and sent it “up the chain”. Answer: “not our worry – just make the thing work.” Nothing else was done in response to my finding.

      From that time on, I got very worried when flying and haven’t for almost ten years. Avionics software cannot be trusted and is likely the cause of far too many pilot errors ending in memorial crater. Fly by wire can kill you. Drive by wire is coming soon and it can kill you too if done to the same standard.

      To that NASA says: “not to worry, it is someone else’s problem.”

      321

      • #

        My God! This should make a post all on its own, Lionell!

        40

        • #

          Thanks for the thought.

          It could be expanded into a many page document because I left out many interesting details – mostly but not all technical. We had an out the window video of the event and a recoding of the pilots voice. The explicit words the pilot used were quite clear during his 700 mph plunge toward the desert floor. Then there is the fact he experienced 9g lateral force as he pulled out of the dive. As I recall, he was only several hundred feet from the surface when he pulled out.

          To make things worse, he was in a rapid spin and had to accelerate downward to regain control over his aircraft. That he and the aircraft survived is a testament to the kind of test pilot he was. As they say, don’t try this at home. Leave it to the professionals to do.

          Someday, I might write more on it.

          50

      • #
        Another Ian

        Lionel

        This sounds like Tom Lehrer on Von Braun

        “When the rockets go up

        Who cares when they go down

        That’s not my department

        Said Werner Von Braun”

        Just happens I have a friend who knew the man and that isn’t his picture.

        00

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Avionics software cannot be trusted and is likely the cause of far too many pilot errors ending in memorial crater.

        Lionel,

        I’ve reached much the same conclusion. I won’t fly without a very pressing need.

        However, as one who knows flying from the inside I’ll still assert that pilot error, just plain inattention, bad judgment and fatigue, not to mention outright incapacity to handle the circumstances is still the major cause of crashes. In the end, the pilot is the only thing aboard with the ability to make judgments about what’s happening and what to do about it. Compromise that pilot’s ability in any way and you’re in much more danger than you are from avionics or fly by wire failure. It’s a simple matter of probability and the probability of human failure is much greater.

        I keep my old Toyota going and will keep it going as far as it will go to avoid not only the increasing drive by wire intrusion but to avoid the very real possibility that there’s a GPS receiver aboard that they don’t tell me about. I keep my cell phone from 2008 for the same reason. It lets me turn off GPS except for 911 and I don’t trust newer ones to do the same.

        00

      • #
        Bob Cormack

        Fly by wire can kill you
        Lionell Griffith

        I had a United Airlines pilot explain a significant difference between Boing and Airbus aircraft. If a plane encounters, say, a microburst downdraft on landing approach and thus builds up a dangerous descent rate, the pilot will push the throttles to the max and pull the nose up (given sufficient airspeed).

        In the Airbus, the computer will sense the throttle movement and command the engines to produce maximum ‘rated’ thrust — this is the maximum thrust that doesn’t compromise the engine’s rated Time Between Overhaul.

        In the Boing, when the throttles are pushed into the stop with more than 70 pounds force, they break through into the “emergency stop” and the engines produce all the thrust that they are capable of (~140% ‘rated’ thrust). When the plane lands (and that had better be within 15-30 minutes), the engines are scrapped — they can’t even be rebuilt.

        Although both airplanes can be flown entirely by the onboard computers (from take off to landing), Airbus thinks the computer should make the final decision — Boing thinks the pilot should. In the situation described above, the pilot might kill you — the computer will kill you.

        41

        • #
          Mark D.

          In the Boing, when the throttles are pushed into the stop with more than 70 pounds force, they break through into the “emergency stop”

          70Lbs? I’m going to look for burly captains on my next flights….

          20

          • #
            Bob Cormack

            70Lbs? I’m going to look for burly captains on my next flights….

            They just want to make sure you REALLY, REALLY want that extra thrust (after all, it’s going to cost the airline ~$25M.) Considering the adrenaline factor, I think nearly anybody could do it.

            ********

            I wonder if the Korean pilots that crashed at San Fran a few weeks ago were in emergency thrust. Of course, they waited too long (it takes seconds to spool turbojets up from idle), since they apparently thought that the computer was doing the landing, but someone had turned the computer landing sys off.

            Besides my rule to fly Boing whenever possible (and avoid Airbus), I have another rule, based on overseas experiences and talks with Boing instructors: Only fly with pilots from the English-speaking countries (excluding India).

            The problem is not pilot skill — the problem is that the cultural ability to handle an emergency comes naturally to (most) people raised in the English-speaking (western) culture, and hard to most people raised in Asian cultures. For example, it is quite possible that somebody in the cockpit of the plane that crashed in S.F. noticed the developing problem, but didn’t want to offend the captain by bringing it up.

            10

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Bob,

              I heartily agree with Boeing. But It looks to me like the San Francisco crash was caused by just plain pilot inattention. Every pilot’s primary training includes how to visually judge where you’re going to touch down and I think they had sufficient visibility to do it. I’ve made many landings, both day and night using that simple technique. It works for big jets as well as single engine Cessnas. I know because I used it to land a 727 simulator three times (a real 727 simulator, not a computer game). No problem. I had a little help with the power but I did all the rest. It’s nice to have a good friend who was an instructor pilot for the now defunct “Proud Bird” doing his year at their training facility at LAX putting pilots through the wringer, which he did to me too. I asked him how I did afterward and he graciously said I did better than some of the real ATP rated pilots he put through. Scary huh?

              We’ll have to wait for the NTSB report to see what they say.

              As far as the pilot might kill you where the computer will kill you — I have an increasing fear that pilots are becoming button pushers instead of flying the airplane more of the time. I have often wondered if a younger captain could have pulled off what “Sully” Sullenberger did. We’ll never know. But I wonder if the automation isn’t being substituted for developing skill and judgment. And judgement is everything. I may be all wet about this but it does bother me.

              10

              • #
                Bob Cormack

                Roy Hogue

                August 18, 2013 at 2:53 am · Reply

                But It looks to me like the San Francisco crash was caused by just plain pilot inattention.

                Unquestionably. If anyone had been paying attention, they couldn’t have failed to notice a 40 kt deficit in airspeed, and the extremely unusual state of engines at idle. The question is WHY weren’t they paying attention? My best guess is that they thought they had initiated an auto-landing, but someone pushed the wrong button and turned it off.

                Your other statement:

                I have an increasing fear that pilots are becoming button pushers instead of flying the airplane more of the time.

                …ties in perfectly with some of my overseas experiences on foreign airlines. ALL air transport pilots are becoming button pushers, but some countries still make them periodically demonstrate that they can fly the plane. Other countries, not so much.

                10

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Unquestionably. If anyone had been paying attention, they couldn’t have failed to notice a 40 kt deficit in airspeed, and the extremely unusual state of engines at idle.

                Bob,

                As you know, pilots make mistakes from time to time (yes folks, even the pros). The good ones are always self critical and looking for their mistakes. And there are not very many you can make in the air that you can’t correct if you catch it soon enough. The worst possible attitude for a pilot is to assume something. It’s check list, double check, monitor and question what your doing all the time when the wheels are off the ground.

                Flying is fun but it’s also demanding. Those who don’t like the discipline or the responsibility (or can’t handle it) should stay out of the cockpit. Unfortunately they don’t always get weeded out in time and you get SFO.

                00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                And if I could follow my own rules I’d have said “…you’re doing…” instead of “…your doing…”

                Proofreading escapes me completely. :-(

                00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                My best guess is that they thought they had initiated an auto-landing,…

                It hit me finally, doesn’t the FAA prohibit use of auto-land? I think so. Maybe they can do it in some other countries but I don’t think it’s within FAA rules to do it here.

                00

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Mark,

            I didn’t realize this immediately but it probably requires that much force so that if you’re a bit excited and shove the levers forward not so gently you don’t go on beyond the point of maximum rated thrust. It does happen that way sometimes.

            00

    • #
      Ace

      Manfred…they couldn’t make the shuttle work reliably in thirty years, they couldn’t complete any of the projects for a replacement, they couldn’t come up with a better engine for the new …notional…manned vehicle than the 1960′s vintage P&W J2, I would wager no manned vehicle will emerge from NASA (the privately developed Dragon module will most likely be the next US manned spacecraft, or else the Japanese or european contenders) but their only design is a pathetic rehash of the Apoloo design…which itself has long been acknowledged to be grossly inferior to Soyuiz (a design the Russians stole from a US company though), all they do is a little party trick over Mars….which theyve been landing things on since 1976…and you are impressed. I’ll remind you that even that well-rehearsed routine sometimnes goes awry, as when in one project they confused metric and imperial units and the craft went millions of miles off course.

      NASA is a joke.

      32

  • #

    It’s great to hear them speaking out, and continue to speak out. The message IS getting out there. Slowly, maybe, but these “small” messages are popping up everywhere now, and that’s a joy to see. The cracks in the alarmist meme are continually levered wider. Heck, just about everyone can see through them now.

    Excellent article, Jo, this was a joy to read. Thank you.

    141

  • #
    blackadderthe4th

    ‘Over forty years later, he describes how the public trust built by the astronauts and technical specialists who put man on the moon has been abused by opportunists. NASA and science has changed.’ so what? Astronaut Gorden Cooper, claimed he had encounters with UFOs! And we all know they are just a figment of the imagination!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvPR8T1o3Dc

    239

    • #
      Angry

      black blatherer…….
      Seek some professional help for your problems FFS !!!!!!!!

      241

      • #
        blackadderthe4th

        ‘Seek some professional help’, like from here?

        [snip links with no summary or explanation] ED

        129

        • #

          @BleakAdderalldefect
          What Angry said.

          131

        • #
          Heywood

          More YouTube spam from BlackIdiotThe4th.

          Obviously you have serious comprehension issues.

          “Links are appreciated in comments but not ones that don’t even have one line of explanation (eg youtube). “

          Over to you, Mods.

          171

          • #
            blackadderthe4th

            ‘ones that don’t even have one line of explanation’, you mean like here?

            ‘Seek some professional help’, like from here?’ at the risk of repeating myself! Anyhow, what do you make of the links? It would be interesting to find out, instead of you just bleating on!

            05

            • #
              Heywood

              “you mean like here?”

              Obviously you have been watching too many YouTube videos because you have lost your grasp of the English language.

              “Seek some professional help” is a quote from a previous post.

              “like from here?” is a question, leading into your list of random YouTube links, assumed to be excerpts from BBC docos, or something featuring one your swinging partners Pooholer or Dick Alley.

              Yes it is one line. No it isn’t an explanation of the context whatsoever.

              “Anyhow, what do you make of the links?”

              Didn’t even bother. I’m not interested in boosting your ego.

              PS. I noted you have been snipped away over at Watts’ blog. Smart move from Anthony.

              10

            • #
              blackadderthe4th

              ‘Didn’t even bother’, that figures!Because you have found out that the truth hurts!

              ‘Smart move from Anthony’ and was it smart of him to dump Dr Muller, after he said he would abide by the results of his investigations, but of course did not!

              Anthony Watts and thjat promise to Dr Muller.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H9QKhIy29c

              04

              • #
                Heywood

                You do love the sound of your own typing don’t you.

                Nice way to leap off topic. What has Muller got to do with anything I said? Oh.. Just another opportunity for you to spam us with more videos.

                10

              • #
                blackadderthe4th

                Because you were claiming that Watts was being smart and I showed you just how ‘smart’ he has been! NOT!

                04

        • #
          Angry

          blah blah blah………..

          Found a good psychiatrist for your numerous problems yet??

          81

          • #
            blackadderthe4th

            —’Found a good psychiatrist for your numerous problems yet??’ watched the links yet? Guess not!

            05

            • #
              Heywood

              “watched the links yet? “

              We have already said we aren’t going to.

              You are nothing but a spamming troll, who has been warned once, so probably lucky not to be snipped away.

              20

              • #
                blackadderthe4th

                ‘We have already said we aren’t going to’ now that is an intelligent statement to make, NOT! Because if you can find any flaws in the videos you/I can contact potholer and if their are valid he may issue a response! As he often does. Now there’s a gauntlet thrown down to you, but I bet it will stay on the floor!

                05

              • #
                Heywood

                “ if you can find any flaws in the videos”

                I am certain I won’t find any flaws because I won’t be watching your boyfriend Pooholer’s videos. I make it policy not to appease YouTube view chasing trolls.

                10

              • #
                blackadderthe4th

                ‘ I won’t find any flaws’, you know you will not, because there is so much evidence to back them up, it would leave you high and dry!

                [On other threads you failed to respond to challenges over the video links. Stop making these types of blanket useless statements and filler posts. Have the courtesy to respond when specific questions are addressed to you. Links posted in the future will be snipped unless you include some explanation or summary of the link.] ED

                14

        • #
          blackadderthe4th

          ‘On other threads you failed to respond to challenges over the video links. Ed’ like when? I’m always asking for challenges to the links I post, but the most popular answer is, ‘I don’t watch them!’. That says a lot does it not? The truth is too hurtful for some people to digest!

          Quote

          ‘Heywood
          August 14, 2013 at 9:59 pm

          I am certain I won’t find any flaws because I won’t be watching your boyfriend Pooholer’s videos.’ Need I say more?

          06

          • #
            Heywood

            “That says a lot does it not?”

            It says more about why you are here. Some sort of attention seeking disorder perhaps? Feel the need to keep that view counter ticking over do we?

            This isn’t the only blog you spam with your boyfriend’s videos, but one by one, you are being found out, and snip snip snipped away…

            Bwaahahahahaha

            30

            • #
              blackadderthe4th

              ‘Feel the need to keep that view counter ticking over do we?’ no! Why would I? What would it mean? Don’t judge other people by your own standards. So bleat away.

              06

              • #

                few say CO2 has no effect on climate,

                This does not seem to matter to BleakAdderallSideEffects^4 because it mainly argues with it’s own delusional version of a typical skeptic.

                To the point in question an increase in CO2 may mean more heat absorbed by atmospheric CO2 then continuing from there out into space instead of being reflected back down off clouds. Could this be yet another way the huge amounts of coal fired power used to run computer models turned out to be a waste?

                30

              • #
                blackadderthe4th

                ‘an increase in CO2 may [WILL} mean more heat absorbed’

                Only 500 million years of evidence that CO2 is a GHG and heating up the planet!

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbUnp0QDaRo

                13

              • #
                Bruce of Newcastle

                BA4 – Here is a graph of pCO2 and temperature over the last 600+ million years.

                You will see in the Triassic period the pCO2 was about the same as it is now, but the temperature was 10 C higher.

                That is not compatible with the high sensitivity hypothesis since CO2 is the same chemical now as it was then. So your comment is rubbish, sir.

                30

              • #
                blackadderthe4th

                ‘BA4 – Here is a graph of pCO2 and temperature over the last 600+ million years’ and it appears to leave out one of the main factors, the Sun! which should be increasing from left to right, as was in the link. If you watched it?

                13

              • #
                Dave

                Hey BA4

                Check out your mate in the latest post.

                And it’s not YouTube, as you’re a lover of big tough men in big tough cars with tiny whinny little Leydig cell hypoplasias, this would suit you down to the ground.

                10

              • #
                Bruce of Newcastle

                it appears to leave out one of the main factors, the Sun!

                BA4 – Ah, so you are aware that leaving out the Sun as a main factor can bias interpretation of the temperature record?

                If you look at this paper and this paper you will see that solar influence on cloud cover caused about 50% of the temperature rise last century.

                Can the Sun have caused temperature rise int he Triassic which is not CO2 related and also caused temperature rise in the 20th Century which is not CO2 related?

                You should ask yourself this.

                Oh, and here is a paper, Neto et al 2013, I saw this morning which further supports the mechanism for the solar indirect warming last century.

                00

              • #
                blackadderthe4th

                Contribution of changing galactic
                cosmic ray flux to global warming

                ‘The well established excellent correlation between
                low-level clouds and primary cosmic ray intensity,
                which act as nuclei for cloud condensation, clearly
                shows that a decrease in primary cosmic ray intensity
                results in lesser low cloud cover’

                Cosmic ray theory debunked, R Alley!

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgAuMWDHy30

                ‘that solar influence on cloud cover caused about 50% ‘
                But:- Paper finds ~‘50% of warming over past 30 years was due to natural ocean oscillations’ Er that’s ocean not clouds!

                here is a paper, Neto et al 2013,
                But:- ‘influence of solar activity on thunderstorm activity in Brazil‘ er, so that’s Brazil not global!

                02

              • #
                Bruce of Newcastle

                BA4 – Ah I love it when you say the D word. Debunked. Favourite word of our Mr Cook.

                I am a scientist and I read the data. If you look at this amazing thing, data, you will find that the relationship is quite true. And to save you the arduous effort I have graphed it right here.

                Of course the people who get paid to do such analysis have done it better, but the relationship is there for anyone with an internet connection and a spreadsheet (also a brain, which seems lacking in many IPCC consensusee cases I am familiar with).

                As for solar vs ocean influences, the oceans contribute about 38% of warming last century (from Canty et al 2013 ACP), which you can see from this graph too (from Scafetta 2010 JASTP). The Sun is responsible for about 44% (Rao 2011). I’m stuck with three links or I annoy the mods, but I’ve linked that paper on this thread or the next one.

                If you deduct 44% and 38% of the warming last century due to the Sun and oceans then the residual, which I am happy to give CO2 credit for, is 18%. Which neatly fits those foul creatures Prof Lindzen and Dr Spencer. And my own independent analysis, which no one has ever shown wrong (but then I am a statistically trained scientist, an unfair advantage perhaps).

                Do you want to continue emulating that other black guy, the black knight in Holy Grail?

                20

            • #
              Heywood

              Udipi Ramachandra Rao is a specialist in the field of Cosmic Rays, having spent nearly his whole career doing research on them.

              But your live in lover Dick Alley, who is a geologist and global warming activist, and NOT an expert in cosmic rays makes a little video which, you say, debunks what the actual expert on cosmic rays concluded in his paper.

              If it has been debunked, why hasn’t it been withdrawn? Where is Dick’s peer reviewed paper specifically debunking Rao’s research?

              Oh that’s right. It’s in a YouTube video and the number of views determines it’s accuracy yes??

              Next time Dick Alley comes to bed, ask him where his paper is.

              20

              • #
                Bruce of Newcastle

                U.R.Rao also ran the Indian space program. A formidable guy. Probably the most prestigious scientist in India. Any wonder why the Indians pay little real credit to the IPCC (except for Pachauri)?

                00

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      “Understanding global climate and what, if anything, humans can do to affect it are scientific questions that can be answered only by honest science and scientific data. Yet, global warming alarmists invariably try to make their case through rhetoric, dogma, opinion, and emotion.” Walter Cunningham

      Thanks for proving his point BA, nice work.

      171

      • #
        blackadderthe4th

        ‘and what, if anything, humans can do to affect it’

        Is co2 important or not?

        The amount of co2 in the atmosphere is so small, it can’t have any effect on the climate say the [snip] , but they also say all life depends on it! Because it is ‘plant food’, so what is the correct answer?

        But if it is so powerful, that all life relies on it, how come it is so small in volume it can’t influence the climate? That’s the oxymoron you people have to come to terms with!

        [snip] ED

        07

        • #
          Ed Caryl

          “No effect on climate” and “All life depends on it” are not mutually exclusive ideas. Beside the fact that few say CO2 has no effect on climate, just that additional CO2 has a very small effect that is not in any way catastrophic, and my indeed be beneficial.

          30

          • #
            blackadderthe4th

            ‘and my indeed be beneficial’, but it gets all credit for life on Earth, but at 400ppm it is so small to have an effect on the climate, well what if I was to say 400ppm is too small an amount to be responsible for all LIFE on Earth! I mean how can such a small amount have an effect like that?

            06

            • #
              Bob Cormack

              Well of course! If CO2 is essential for all life on Earth, then it MUST be responsible for dangerous Global Warming!

              OK…well, perhaps that counts as “logic” in your universe. Why then, isn’t oxygen even more responsible for Global Warming, since it is also essential for life and present in far greater amounts?

              (And, let’s not belittle dirt. Where would land plants be without dirt, and it IS known to be an efficient absorber of Solar radiation! All plowing must stop immediately!)

              20

              • #
                blackadderthe4th

                ‘Why then, isn’t oxygen even more responsible for Global Warming’ because it is not a GHG! And nobody is or has claimed that as far as I’m aware, because they would be larfed off the planet.

                ‘it IS known to be an efficient absorber of Solar radiation’ please explain?

                12

              • #
                Bob Cormack

                blackadderthe4th

                August 15, 2013 at 8:45 pm

                ‘Why then, isn’t oxygen even more responsible for Global Warming’ because it is not a GHG!

                OK then; Let me rephrase your current argument:

                IF a gas is a GHG AND a tiny amount of it is essential for all life on Earth, THEN only a tiny amount of it is also necessary to cause dangerous planetary warming

                Nope…still moronic.

                20

              • #
                Heywood

                but but but Bob,

                He saw it in a YOUTUBE VIDEO produced by his boyfriends. It MUST be true…

                10

            • #
              AndyG55

              “well what if I was to say 400ppm is too small an amount to be responsible for all LIFE on Earth”

              Anyone with even the slightest understanding of biological chemistry would immediate come the correct conclusion that you were total MORON. !

              21

              • #
                blackadderthe4th

                ‘that you were total MORON’ so how does that tiny amount, 400ppm, be responsible for all life on Earth, but can not possibly have any effect on the climate, because it is too small an amount?

                14

              • #
                Bob Cormack

                @blackadderthe4th:

                The key point in AndyG55′s statement was:

                Anyone with even the slightest understanding of biological chemistry…

                Obviously, he’s not talking about you.

                00

    • #
      Otter

      Your integrity, honesty and intelligence are a figment of your imagination.

      91

    • #
      Andrew Barnham

      John Glenn reported seeing “fireflies” on his Friendship 7 flight. Edgar Mitchell was a proponent of psychic communication and conducted some impromptu related experiments while on the surface of the moon.

      So even among highly trained and highly accomplished people you will find individuals that retain odd ideas.

      What’s your point? That all can be dismissed, inspite of their aggregate accomplishments, because of the views of one individual?

      So by your rationalisation, all I need to do is find one climate scientist who clings to one crazy idea in order to dismiss the entire fraternity. That shouldn’t be too difficult at all I would think.

      120

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      He/she is just a total irrelevance.

      I just ignore everything he/she posts, and usually everything in the subsequent thread. If nobody gave him/her the time, or the hits, his/her fun would end, and he/she would whither and die.

      Except we would never know, because nobody would notice.

      91

    • #

      No ad hom is too low, too tenuous, toooo irrelevant….

      100

      • #
        Albert

        Too many single red ticks, looks like someone has run down the page and added red ticks till he/she got sick of it

        20

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Well, comment 6 and follow-on turned out to be waste of time. :-(

      00

  • #
    Greg Cavanagh

    It’s all about those who are in control.

    Obama has made statements on wht NASA will do while he is in office. The heads of NASA have allowed their standards to drop through the floor (in specific areas). The heads of governments, and I’m pointing at England. The heads of scientific bodies and magazines.

    If the head is rotten…

    151

  • #
    Another Ian

    NASA – if you’re depending on this organization – try reading

    “Moonwatcher” by Gordon Baxter, Flying July 1989.

    20 years after the first moon landing NASA’s Johnson Space Centre didn’t recognize the names of Collins, Aldrin and Armstrong.

    61

  • #

    ….seven Apollo astronauts, several former Headquarters managers and Center directors, and 40 former management-level technical specialists. We asked that he restrain NASA from including unproven claims in public releases and on websites. Statements by NASA that man-made carbon dioxide was having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated,….

    The above gives a clue as to where these people below can get some good technical advice about remote power systems from. So that this problem they have below does not happen while they write insulting parodies and continue shadow boxing in a futile self destructive war against natural variation and sensible people.

    Unfortunately during the process of backing up the sound file the power to the WtD offices failed – a recurring problem when relying upon the vagaries of solar power.

    Watching The Deniers

    21

  • #
    handjive

    One More Mission

    The Right Climate Stuff

    Apollo Era NASA Retirees publish new report. The Science Is Not Settled!!

    The Right Climate Stuff (TRCS) research team is a volunteer group of more than 20 scientists and engineers who are primarily retired veterans of our manned space program.
    We began our investigation into the controversial issue of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) in February 2012.

    This report provides a summary of findings that we have reached at this point into our investigation.

    1. The science that predicts the extent of Anthropogenic Global Warming is not settled science.
    2. There is no convincing physical evidence of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
    3. Computer models need to be validated before being used in critical decision-making.
    4. Because there is no immediate threat of global warming requiring swift corrective action, we have time to study global climate changes and improve our prediction accuracy.
    5. Our US government is over-reacting to concerns about Anthropogenic Global Warming.
    6. A wider range of solution options should be studied for global warming or cooling threats from any credible cause.

    101

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    After Philip Adams recently conducted a disgusting public defamation of Ian Plimer, I wrote to him and challenged him to invite John Christy on his show. I bet you can guess what happened. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/darwin-and-climage-change-denial/4852912

    John Christy is perhaps the single biggest thorn in the side of AGW disciples. His credentials are beyond question, perhaps the most qualified person on the topic of climate science in the world today and his integrity is likewise not open for debate. He is highly decorated in his field and retains the utmost respect from the scientific community, even those who disagree with him. He is perhaps the last person in the NASA team with any credibility for my money.

    ‘Extreme events, like the recent U.S. drought, will continue to occur, with or without human causation’

    ‘These recent U.S. ‘extremes’ were exceeded in previous decades’ — ‘The expression of ‘worse than we thought’ climate change as documented in [James] Hansen’s OpEd does not stand up to scrutiny’ (John Christy 2012)

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/21/dr-john-christys-testimony-before-congress/

    Yet all we get from the church of AGW is Ad Hominem in response.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/John_Christy_blog.htm

    Cook and Co. are not fit to shine this guys shoes, but they still think its ok to put him down. Disgusting, just low and cheap and disgusting.

    I agree so strongly with Walter Cunningham, science has been damaged and maybe even beyond repair. As people drift back toward superstition and religion in increasing numbers we will be bale to look back at these days and see the “tipping point” where science blew its own foot off and ruined its credibility perhaps for ever.

    171

    • #
      Bulldust

      What a condescending delivery Mr Adams has. How pathetic to pick a history professor to discuss the veracity of the hypothesis of climate change. He also inverted the burden of scientific proof saying tha the “theory of climate change” had not yet been disproved. I could go on at length but the interview is appalling scientifically.

      There are parallels between Darwin and skeptics … both had to fight the majority view of religious zealots. What the dear professor misses is that the CAGW is the religion.

      81

      • #
        Safetyguy66

        Bulldust I was so amazed at the irony of the choice of analogies I almost thought they were taking the Mick.

        By far the courage and tenacity to argue climate these days must be possessed by the skeptics not the believers. To argue on the one hand that the majority of scientists are in no doubt about the truth of AGW (97% in fact), then in the same breath present themselves as victims of a majority skeptic view is just breathtakingly ironic, not to mention utterly false.

        The whole interview was pathetic and came across as nothing more than a personal “get back” session by Adams against Plimer for some perceived abandonment of friendship. I am a big fan of Philip Adams, but this episode left me deeply shocked and I have reconsidered my opinion of the man. Someone so intelligent who can act so childishly in a position of responsibility like his, smacks of poor very judgement and an abiding lack of care for truth or even basic decency.

        50

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    GISS is captured by the CAGW religion, but their close cousins Goddard Space Flight Centre (GSFC) are much more sceptical as evidenced by this post, which very fairly covers most of the elements of the Svensmark mechanism.

    Also there is the letter from 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts which they sent to the NASA administrator last year objecting to the official position on global warming.

    Of course serving NASA personnel could not cosign, nor could they dare to speak out without terrible retribution. But I strongly suspect once the political masters change their position on CAGW then there will be great relief from the many real scientists and engineers in that organisation. And quite a few retirements announced by CAGW religionists, especially from GISS.

    61

  • #
    WheresWallace

    And yet despite being privy to the internal workings at NASA, Walter couldn’t find any scientific basis against AGW. we just get his *feelings*.

    115

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      That is because, as a Physicist, he will be well used to the idea that you can only prove that something is, or can, occur.

      His feelings would relate to the fact than nothing about AGW has been proven in a replicable way.

      You cannot prove that something doesn’t occur. So your whole statement say more about your lack of logic, that it does about the state of the climate.

      151

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    Along with Universities, Local Government and the like we have a large Australia Scientific and Industrial Research group which was once at the Apex of our small Australian economy.

    It was revered by all for it’s wonderful support of Australian business and advancement in new areas or science but is now riddled with the cancerous political correctness so necessary to survive as a scientist in these dangerous times.

    The people working there are undoubtedly talented and worth having on our side, but is there any point in having every submission, no matter how tangentially connected with he environment prefaced by a statement that :

    “this work will help mitigate Carbon Dioxide levels in the Atmosphere”?

    It is insulting to the intelligence of all involved and especially to the trusting Australian public.

    KK

    51

  • #

    NASA should be abolished, and replaced by a series of prizes, modelled on the x-prize. http://www.xprize.org/

    The x prize helped create Virgin Galactic. A simple prize, with anyone free to compete for it, helped stimulate companies to develop affordable space launch technology, like Spaceship One, which NASA, with its multi-billion dollar annual budget, never seriously considered.

    If you have an assured budget of billions, no matter how much you mess things up, there is no incentive to get it right – it is far more profitable to expend your talents on working out how to win a bigger budget, than on working out how to spend it wisely.

    71

    • #

      Apparently, NASA learned the lesson well. Consider the Challenger “incident” in which a shuttle and all aboard were lost due to a managerial decision that it was “safe to launch”. This was at a time when NASA’s budgets were being slashed. As a result of the incident, they were given over $3 billion to “fix” the problem. The managers who made the “decisions” were promoted and the engineers who tried to stop the launch came close to losing their jobs.

      A failure large enough brings in abundant cash. A success, leads to slashing the budgets. The more spectacular the success, the greater the slash. The loss of lives and outrageously costly equipment are of little concern because that leads to a big payoff. NASA’s driving motivation has become simply to control a huge flow of causeless cash and from it produces little more than pretty pictures and lots of glowing words.

      A few underfunded guys in the Mojave Desert produced more with less and got to the edge of space and back in just a few years. They did it on what is petty cash for NASA.

      Once again, I ask, what do we need Government for? NASA sure isn’t the answer.

      101

      • #
        Manfred

        Interesting response Lionell thanks, and one as a humble private pilot I understand. Fly-by-wire has troubled me instinctively as it has Airbus Industries, regrettably in more obvious ways over the years. My understanding is that the NASA culture, which in a sense provided the stage on which the Challenger and Columbia losses occurred has changed substantially, and for the better since, though arguably such change has not reached GISS.

        As I said:

        NASA has achieved, is achieving and will continue to achieve utterly stupendous, awe inspiring work with the skills and dedication of the brightest and despite the lead weight of the moment.

        The Cassini–Huygens mission, Curiosity and the two Rovers Opportunity and Spirit are examples of truly stellar and successful work.

        Wouldn’t it would seem plausible that such project teams function semi-independently within the wider corporate bureaucracy of NASA? No different I suppose from the antics of lunatics like James Hansen in his nest at The Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), who built their toxic little empires within the largely anonymous, indifferent corporate structure of NASA.

        Political correctness does the rest, along with Green centered policies and eco-politics of the day. It is very difficult to call these people out as a result, well demonstrated by the variety of outstanding individuals and astronauts who find themselves compelled to speak out against the mindless bureaucratic meme in which they find themselves unwittingly caught-up.

        Little will change until the political will changes, usually as a function of the need to acquire votes. The Green meme is going to cost more jobs, inflict more pain more tax, and stultify progress but people are waking up and they will inevitably use their votes.

        20

        • #

          I suggest those achievements were done in spite of the “system” and not because of it. Some of the people at JPL did an outstanding job because they are outstanding people who have high INTERNAL standards. I am familiar with some of their work. Tight budgets, short time schedules, and incredible performance with success being the only option they allow themselves. Not so with the other parts of NASA I have encountered. There is a fundamental law of systems in which a component, no matter how superior or motivated, cannot perform better than the system. Those who do don’t survive long.

          The answer is NOT huge, over funded, top heavy organizations. It is small, lean and mean teams, responsible for and focused on results. Rather like Lockheed’s old Skunkworks. Large teams cannot function above the lowest common denominator. There is a constellation of reasons why.

          The problem goes way beyond “political correctness”. Management typically believes its job is to make decisions and the lowly worker who makes things is supposed to make the decisions work without having the information, the resources, and the freedom to do it. The decisions are totally unnecessary if adequate discovery has been allowed to happen. Then the right thing to do is obvious and the effort can then be applied to the right things in the right way.

          Management’s real job is to make sure the right people are doing the right work and that they have the resources and freedom to get it done. Then, management should go fishing or play golf so they stay out of the way.

          30

          • #
            Another Ian

            Lionel,

            “First rate management hires first rate help.

            Second rate management hires third rate help”

            Baxter Black

            30

        • #
          Another Ian

          Manfred

          I knew a bloke who got a job on the aerospace edge of electronics. When he got the job his ambition was to get a ride on the Shuttle.

          A few years later when he knew more his ambition was NOT to get a ride on the Shuttle.

          This was before the first one blew up.

          30

  • #
    Mark

    I fear the same has happened here with our own CSIRO.

    61

  • #
    Michael the Realist

    Please list the qualifications in climate science and their research activities and published peer reveiwed articles in the science of all the people on the petition. Opinion and rhetoric is all the letter above contains, zero science. It is disgusting that they are trying to use their fame to influence public opinion rather than pursue their argument in proper scientific endeavours. This is where the religious dogma, ideology and special interest groups in the ‘skeptic’ community are waging their war against the science, and damaging the whole scientific community in general.

    [There is a difference between "honest debate" and what you indulge in here, which is not honest, does not allow any contrary opinion, and seems to rely on childish point-scoring. In future, argue your point using logic, and polite rhetoric, whilst acknowledging the value of counter opinions, and you can continue to comment here. Failure to do those things will get you banned. -Fly]

    320

    • #
      Bruce of Newcastle

      Michael – Were you addressing your questions to me?

      Well my qualifications include a relevant PhD in science, 30 years as an R&D scientist, qualifications in stats, large scale modelling, thermodynamics and actual work in the climate field.

      My model fits the temperature record unlike the IPCC ensemble.

      I can give you dozens and probably hundreds (if I went through my files) of papers showing that CAGW is precluded from the empirical climate data. This is despite the now well known efforts by a clique of ideological climate scientists to suppress and prevent such papers from being published.

      Open your eyes. The temperature record is not consistent with a high value for 2XCO2.

      121

      • #
        Michael the Realist

        Nope Bruce, it was to the post in general. I notice that you are using the dishonest cherry pick from Roy spencer of tropical mid troposphere data rather than global information that includes the poles.

        The science is more than the models, and is based on the physics, experimental data, observations and historical proxies to get to the approximately 3 degree increase for a doubling of CO2. The data is on track when you take into account natural fluctuations and all the sources of increasing energy in the system. Only cherry picking like yours cast any doubt, but on closer examination is shown to be without substance. As I point out below, your comment of a ‘clique of climate scientists blah blah blah’ is not supportable under the full weight of organisations (globally), scientists and the science that supports AGW. Especially when one peer reviewed survey after another show overwhelming support in the science and the scientists for AGW.

        As to the temperature record, firstly it is only one place where energy is increasing and secondly the 2001-2010 decade was the hottest on the instrumental record ON EVERY CONTINENT, GLOBALLY, OVER THE OCEANS, THE LAND, in the SOUTHERN AND NORTHERN HEMISPHERE. So claims of warming stopped or cooling started are not sustainable. When natural factors are taken into account we can see that 2011 and 2012 where the hottest la nina affected years on record. Those are the facts!!!

        223

        • #
          Bruce of Newcastle

          Michael – Sorry I thought you’d replied to me as I’d linked to the letter from the 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts.

          The analysis of Spencer’s was the quickest I could recall. His conclusions seem correct since he is comparing like with like. Its the models which aren’t modelling the tropical troposphere. Why shoot the messenger? Anyway here is another one I saw today.

          von Storch et al 2013

          we find that the continued warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level.

          Prof von Storch is not regarded as a climate sceptic as far as I know.

          Further to your comment that “2001-2010 decade was the hottest on the instrumental record” so what? The most recently completed solar cycle was the most active for about 9,000 years. The decade also coincided with the peak of the AMO and PDO. You will note in my model the solar dynamo has quite a large indirect effect on temperature. As per this peer reviewed paper, which likewise uses long term empirical data. All the necessary information is here if you wish to falsify the analysis.

          60

        • #
          Safetyguy66

          -Repost-

          No, I think your just taking the pi$$. No one seriously believes any of that 97% crap. The media spews it out, the welded on believers like yourself didn’t need selling and the public isn’t listening. Mainly because your so called scientists cried wolf on global disaster so many times in the last 2 decades, people have stopped being frightened by it.

          According to Morgan research the number of Australians listing concern for climate change as a “front of mind” issue peaked in 2008 at 37%. At the last poll of the same question in late 2012 the result was 7%, they plan to ask the question again closer to the election, the pollsters expect the number to be lower than that.

          Now think about Kevin Rudd and the labour party generally on this topic. In 2008 Rudd described it as the “greatest moral challenge of our time” now he wont take questions on the topic, have you heard him mention it, or try to bring it into the debate? Back then his handlers told him “Kev its worth at least 35%, you gotta run with it”, now they are telling him “its gay marriage and the deficit where you can make a difference in the polls” so off he goes on those topics.

          Michael, this is going to hurt, but mate, you’ve been had. You have swallowed the worm, hook, line, sinker and the rod and reel.

          You either have to believe that the people in power around the world both political and scientific have figured the best days of milking people on the AGW myth have passed and have moved on, or you believe they know the planet is in grave danger and are in a conspiracy of choosing to ignore the problem. Which is more believable? But keep in mind, its going to be you being guilty of bizarre conspiracy theories if you think its the latter and not the former my friend.

          70

    • #
      handjive

      Quote Michael: “Please list the qualifications in climate science and their research activities and published peer reveiwed articles in the science of all the people on the petition.”

      Better still, why don’t you do the research and show the lack of qualifications to prove your point.

      I tried to find some climate qualifications for Al Gore to show you how it’s done, but ….

      70

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        The AlGorithm studied a little bit of Theology at one point.

        KK

        20

      • #
        Michael the Realist

        Al Gore is not a scientist.

        I point to the 100% of internationally recognised scientific organisations that have expressed support for AGW, the thousand upon thousand of actual scientists working in the field and publishing and the overwhelming peer reviewed science, of which less than 3% cast any doubt on the science.

        Link to list of organisations below.

        111

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Lots and lots of people in China, India and Vietnam work, In the Field.

          KK

          30

        • #
          Heywood

          “Al Gore is not a scientist”

          Has anyone told him that??

          10

        • #
          Ed Caryl

          “Thousand upon thousand”(sic)… The 97% number was based on less than a hundred. The IPCC reports are written by less than a hundred. There aren’t thousands, and the non-believers outnumber them. Most of the “peer reviewed” literature that mentions “climate change” inserts it to get past the censors. The authors are best defined as fellow travelers. All their work will eventually be discarded.

          20

    • #
      Heywood

      AAD,

      “Please list the qualifications in climate science and their research activities and published peer reveiwed articles in the science”

      List yours.

      70

      • #
        Michael the Realist

        Mine are not relevent, I accept the science as accepted by the scientists scientific organisation and the peer reveiwed science.

        Whos AAD?

        28

        • #
          Heywood

          “Whos AAD?”

          You know exactly who AAD is. You said you were happy to be called it. Arrogant Annoying D[snip].

          40

        • #
          Heywood

          “Mine are not relevent, I accept the science…..”

          Interesting.

          So if you agree to the party line, regardless of the claim, no qualifications necessary.
          But if you have any doubts, whatsoever, qualifications are demanded.

          Is it at all possible that someones interpretation of the so called peer reviewed science is incorrect due to their lack of appropriate qualifications on the specific subject?

          It isn’t unreasonable to ask if the person preaching said peer reviewed science has an appropriate qualification to interpret the conclusions.

          It works both ways champ. If we present peer reviewed research to you that you disagree with, you would be more than happy to tell us that we don’t understand the paper well enough.

          70

          • #
            Greg Cavanagh

            He hasn’t read the paper that says 90% of all peer reviewed papers are junk. Oh hang on, would he read any peer reviewed papers at all?

            These people do amaze me.

            Michael. Why do you get so angry at people who want more information (read better proofs) from a peer reviewed paper, yet you, having no vested interest at all, defend to the hilt the stance that the peer reviewed paper makes?

            Have you ever heard of peer reviewed papers that get retracted? How do you think that happens?

            40

            • #
              Michael the Realist

              Peer reviewed papers get retracted, they also get critisised by other peer reveiwed papers, and critisised by the expert scientific community in general after they get published in a professional journal. This is how it is supposed to work. They put themselves up to scrutiny by the whole professional scientific community by going through the peer reviewed process. Thats what gives me confidence in peer reviewed science.

              How many blog posts get retracted? Who evaluates them before posting, who critisises them after posting? Nope blog posts are just opinion and mostly biased opinion with heavy emphasis on special interest groups and ideology. This is not how science is done and progresses.

              00

              • #
                Mark D.

                So Michael TR you agree that 90% of all peer reviewed papers are junk?

                Confidence?

                And why are you so worried about blog posts? Are you against free speech?

                00

              • #
                Heywood

                “blog posts are just opinion and mostly biased opinion with heavy emphasis on special interest groups and ideology”

                So you have visited (not)SkepticalScience then.

                But they have won an award! That makes their opinion credible, as opposed to the opinion on other award winning blogs such as JoNova and Watts.

                00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Michael says”

      “the ‘skeptic’ community are waging their war against the science”

      Of course, the science, is Man Made Global Warming Science.

      Well Michael, people with an education in The Science or better still Science, would see you as an uneducated Droid that is devoid of any personal capacity to do anything apart from what it has been programmed to do.

      R2D2 beep, R2D2 beep, R2D2 beep.

      KK

      40

      • #
        Michael the Realist

        Ooops, you have so little [SNIP} you should probably just keep quiet [take your own advice] ED.

        110

        • #
          Heywood

          “you should probably just keep quiet”

          KK has been commenting on this blog for many years.

          You have been here five minutes.

          It’s more than a little arrogant for you to tell anyone here to ‘keep quiet’.

          90

          • #
            Michael the Realist

            Well if all he has are personal attacks then you guys are very patient.

            013

            • #
              Bruce of Newcastle

              Michael – I am not making any personal attacks on you.

              Why don’t you address the content of my replies? I note you haven’t done so.

              I am willing to take some time to discuss the science, since I love science and hate to see when it is prejudiced by politics, as has been occurring in the climate space. So how about discussing some science without fear or favour?

              80

              • #
                Heywood

                Bruce,

                If you look back through the last month or so of articles, it is interesting to see the subjects that AAD (AKA Michael) doesn’t address. He has a (impressive) number of pre-prepared replies but if you vary the scope too much, the thread becomes ‘ignored’.

                50

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              Sometimes, being faced with somebody who believes, quite genuinely, that what they have been told is the truth, when you know that it is straight off the propaganda song sheet, can be frustrating.

              The problem is, that there is not enough propaganda to answer all of the scientific questions, opinions, and statements, that the Scientists, and Engineers that frequent this site, will put to you. Thus, you have to resort to point-scoring tactics if you want to stay on the field, and in the game.

              But the Scientists and Engineers will recognise that for what it is, and so we descend into these trivial and worthless discussions.

              The majority of people who come here actually know more about the way the real world physically works, than do the theoretical climate scientists and computer scientists, that you hold up as the gold standard.

              The climate scientists can fool a lot of the people most of the time, and the politicians all of the time, but they can’t fool the real science community because we are far too pragmatic.

              80

      • #
        AndyG55

        “Michael says”

        “the ‘skeptic’ community are waging their war against the [climate] science”

        This is the problem.

        Skeptics are fighting against something that is sort of like ghost, or a figment.

        Something that only exists in the minds of those inflicted by it.

        20

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      “It is disgusting that they are trying to use their fame to influence public opinion rather than pursue their argument in proper scientific endeavours”

      You mean in the same way Al Gore did ?

      30

    • #
      Ace

      So lets see your CV Michael if its so necessary.

      You confuse two totally different things. The opinions of people who are scientists by profession and the conclusions indicated by The Science. They aren’t the same thing and clearly qualifications are only relevant to the former, not the latter.

      In other words, you are simply taking the opinions of some scientists you have chosen to believe on trust. If they have to be so qualified to merit such trust and you dont yourself possess the same qualifications then by that yard-stick you arent qualified to knoiw whether their opinions are a valid reflection of the science.

      I dont believe that…its what you have just said.

      So you are deciding who to trust not based on the scientific validity of their case but…other things. Cultural things. Your zeitgeist and upbriging. Happenchance.

      50

    • #

      Why don’t you just piss off back to Skeptical Science and stop bothering us?

      50

  • #
    Michael the Realist

    Its funny that individuals don’t accept the science and complain of special interest groups and individuals perverting and influencing the science, when in reality science speaks as one voice, it is the special interest groups and individuals that try to attack, pervert and influence the science by these fake attacks on organisations and individuals. newsflash, NASA and hansen did not invent climate change, that was worked out over 100 years ago and is now accepted (after many decades of actual research and science) by 97% of qualified scientists and virtually 100% of internationally recognised scientific organisations on every continent globally!!!

    “The list contains scientific organizations around the world that acknowledge the global impact of rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities. While many more organizations could likely be added, the list is limited to those that have either issued a singular statement of their own or signed in agreement to a collective statement regarding the anthropogenic impact of rising emissions on global climate and the global biosphere.
    All statements have been issued since 2001.
    At present, there are 171 organizations on the list that span all continents outside of Antarctica.”
    http://scentofpine.org/consensus/

    411

    • #
      MemoryVault

      Michael,

      Please list the qualifications in climate science . . .

      In terms of money squandered spent on “climate science” in this country, by far and away the most influential person has been Professor Tim Flannery.

      Could you please list his qualifications in “climate science”?

      101

      • #
        Michael the Realist

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Flannery

        Its to much to list as his qualifications and peer reviewed publications and research is extensive. Feel free to peruse his wikipedia page.

        Now your turn. Do you have a list of the qualifications and research and peer reviewed publications relevent to climate science for the people in the petition?
        [This is irrelevant, and you are thread bombing. Stop it -Fly]

        29

        • #
          Safetyguy66

          So an astronomer and a paleontologist ?

          Am I missing something that should impress me about their climate credentials?

          The two of them put together wouldn’t equal John Christy’s resume when he was in his early 30s lol

          80

        • #
          Heywood

          “mammalogist, palaeontologist, environmentalist and global warming activist”

          Since when has Palaeontology and Mammology been qualfications in “climate science” ??

          Environmentalist and global warming activists aren’t scientific qualifications.

          50

        • #
          MemoryVault

          Do you have a list of the qualifications and research and peer reviewed publications relevent to climate science

          I see. So now “qualifications in climate science” includes “publications”. Fair enough.

          I wrote “The Green Hoax Effect” in 1988 and 1989. It was published as a book in January 1990 and sold 70,000 copies world-wide over the next twelve years, far outstripping anything published by Flim Flammery.

          One of the main reasons it sold so well was that it included a $1,000.00 prize to anybody who could demonstrate the maths was flawed, so professors all over the world encouraged their students to get a copy and collect the money.

          So I’d say it would be fair to claim the “The Green Hoax Effect” was probably “peer-reviewed” by more fledgling “climate scientists” than any publication ever, before or since.

          The prize was never claimed.

          .
          So by your definition I guess I can claim to be the most highly qualified “climate scientist” in the world.

          Thanks.

          120

          • #
            Ace

            You may be a conspiracy nut MV but thats a brilliant answer.
            Now I know how to sell more books. But do you actually have to have a million before you are allowed to offer that incentive :-)

            30

            • #
              MemoryVault

              But do you actually have to have a million before you are allowed to offer that incentive

              I guess so – either that, or be very, very sure of your maths.

              As an aside, it is interesting to note that, at the time, nobody ever queried whether I could have paid out if I had, in fact, been wrong. Which is just as well.

              The power of human greed, I suppose.

              30

              • #
                Safetyguy66

                Ive been offering to anyone who wants to take up the bet, the following.

                We both put say $1000-$5000 in a trust account controlled by a “reputable” law firm (ok that could be hard to organise lol). Then make our predictions about how the science, predictions and facts of AGW will look in say 5 generations or 100-125 years. Which to my mind is the kind if time frame that is required at the very minimum for anything approaching conclusive evidence to emerge from this debate.

                My position would be that the world will be indistinguishable from the world of today in climate terms and that people of the day will look back at this debate and wonder why anyone thought it was an important topic, given that absolutely nothing predicted by AGW disciples came to pass. Plus or Minus changes in technology, the planet will be basically unchanged. (remember this is about carbon and climate, not general pollution)

                The contra position (for reasons of consistency) should be that the planet will basically be uninhabitable. Many believers who post on this forum seem to genuinely believe humanity will be wiped out or living in such degraded conditions, we will be basically just scratching for survival in caves. Seas will be acid and algae, vertebrate life will be virtually gone all forests will be deserts and all deserts will be worse deserts. Weather will be nothing more than daily floods, tornadoes, blizzards and heat waves, you basically wont be able to go outside.

                The person who is closest in their prediction wins and the funds including interest and minus legal fees goes to the great, great, great, great, great grandchild of the winner. So we pick a date in about 2150 and that’s when the decision will be made by the lawyer about who won.

                Strangely I haven’t had anyone prepared to put their money where their Mayan Doom prophecy mouths are yet. Go figure.

                10

          • #
            Safetyguy66

            Its a great book title. I thought a good title for a climate skeptic book would be “Weapons of Mass Distraction” lol

            20

            • #
              MemoryVault

              .
              Actually, I originally called it “The Great Green Greasy Greenhoax Effect”, but the publisher wouldn’t go for it.

              Said it was too many words.

              I hate publishers.

              20

            • #
              Ace

              I use a DIY chain called Tool Station. The motto on their carrier bags is “Weapons of Mass Construction” with a profile image of a drill.

              Hilarious watching some German woman on the U-bahn puzzling over this with a frown.

              20

    • #
      Bruce of Newcastle

      Michael – You don’t work in science do you? If you did you will know from history that the consensus can be overturned quite rapidly when data is found to falsify the previous view. It happens all the time.

      In the 1980′s the consensus was that stress caused ulcers, which was overturned by Dr Barry Marshall who was forced to prove that heliobacter pylorii was the culprit, by infecting himself then curing himself of it. He won the Nobel for this.

      Alfred Wegener was in the same position over continental drift. Kepler and Galileo likewise over heliocentricity. Even Einstein was in the same position on relativity.

      The empirical equilibrium sensitivity is about 0.7 C/doubling. At that value we cannot raise the temperature much. We’d have to burn roughly 20 times the amount of fossil fuel we have hitherto to add 2 more degrees – which is not going to happen. There just isn’t that much burnable carbon in the world to put that amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.

      But if you think otherwise, cite a scientific paper. We can talk about it. How about one of Mike Mann’s, like this one?

      100

      • #
        FijiDave

        Bruce, I doff my hat to you. Admirable restraint. I can barely read the twerp’s comments.

        by 97% of qualified scientists

        It’s enough to make one up-chuck his lunch.

        40

        • #
          Safetyguy66

          Yeah somewhere in the world there is a professor of dentistry that agrees with the notion the climate is changing. Excuse me while I recover from how impressed I am.

          30

      • #
        Michael the Realist

        Considering that temps have already increased by more than 0.7 Bruce since the cooling trend before industrialisation was turned around, I would wonder where you peer reviewed science is for that conclusion.

        “The analysis shows that the rise in average world land temperature globe is approximately 1.5 degrees C in the past 250 years, and about 0.9 degrees in the past 50 years.”
        http://berkeleyearth.org/images/annual-comparison-small.png

        210

        • #
          Bruce of Newcastle

          Sure.

          IPCC AR4 gives the temperature rise last century as 0.74 C, which was from 1906-2005. (I’m not sure why they use that particular century, but its interesting it corresponds remarkably with the 60 year cycle in the oceans).

          Of this, 38% or about 0.28 C was due to the ~60 year cycle in the oceans.

          Another 45% or 0.33 C was due to the indirect influence of the solar magnetic field on terrestrial cloud cover (ie via the Svensmark mechanism or something like it – see the GSFC link I gave upthread).

          That leaves about 17% for CO2 and everything else, which fits rather well with the measured values of 2XCO2 around 0.7 C (from the CERES and ERBE datasets). Also my independent determination from the high quality long term CET dataset.

          Your assumption is that all the temperature rise has been due to CO2 and other greenhouse gases. That assumption is not supported by the data.

          60

          • #
            AndyG55

            Of this, 38% or about 0.28 C was due to the ~60 year cycle in the oceans.

            Another 45% or 0.33 C was due to the indirect influence of the solar magnetic field on terrestrial cloud cover

            And a further 60% or so , 0.6C, was from Hansenian maladjustment.

            10

        • #
          Bruce of Newcastle

          Michael – BTW that BEST graph has moved, your link doesn’t work. The graph is now here instead:

          http://static.berkeleyearth.org/img/annual-comparison-small.png

          20

        • #
          bobl

          And that 0.7 represents a climate sensitivity to CO2 of less that 1.4 deg per doublimg… please do the math Michael

          Being such a zealot presumably you also believe.

          Grannies and babies should be left to freeze to death in winter not being able to turn on the heater -thats ok by you?

          It’s ok by you that poor people should starve in africa while we burn food in our cars?

          It’s ok by you for our government to burn 11 Bn dollars every year chasing a 0.000024 degree reduction in temperature in 100 years time instead of curing cancer, immunising the worlds children, or saving the whales.

          It’s ok by you that the odd patient dies in hospital when the power goes off because a cloud went over or the wind stopped blowing.

          It’s ok by you that the legacy you will leave for your children will be that for the first time in history they will be less likely to get a job and be poorer than their parents

          you are obviously so morally superior Michael….

          70

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      R2D2 beep, R2D2 beep, R2D2 beep

      40

    • #
      handjive

      Michael,
      Seeing how your science is done by “consensus” and “appeal to authority“, here is a “consensus” of 400 scientists.

      Why is your consensus, who constantly say, “We were wrong, its “worse than we thought,” correct?

      20

      • #
        Michael the Realist

        Your list of 400 is a joke and a massive fail, the article YOU point to says that, not me.
        My list is of qualified, researching and publishing climate scientists, the science and the scientific organisations. The basics are clearly understood and the observations are consistent, the detail is evolving as it is a planet we are talking about with many other factors, both natural and anthropogenic, involved.

        AGU Statement
        ” Titled “Human-induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action,” the statement declares that “humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years” and that ”rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.” AGU develops position statements to provide scientific expertise on significant policy issues related to Earth and space science. These statements are limited to positions that are within the range of available geophysical data or norms of legitimate scientific debate.”
        http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/pdf/position_statements/AGU_Climate_Statement_new.pdf

        .

        07

        • #
          handjive

          Quote Micheal:Your list of 400 is a joke and a massive fail, the article YOU point to says that, not me.

          Gotta get up early in the morning fool our Michael! Caught Me!

          But your list ADMITS it is CONSTANTLY WRONG, and then posts data to prove how wrong they are.

          Last count of failed AGW climate science predictions at google:2,890,000
          (that’s almost 3Million for the numerically challenged)

          Now that is a FAIL in mega proportions in anyone’s books.

          40

        • #
          Bruce of Newcastle

          The basics are clearly understood and the observations are consistent, the detail is evolving as it is a planet we are talking about with many other factors, both natural and anthropogenic, involved.

          I certainly agree with that paragraph.

          The natural factors explain about 5/6ths of the temperature rise last century. Which leaves roughly 1/6th for CO2.

          Since CO2 has a logarithmic response, this precludes CAGW.

          No one says climate doesn’t change, but the data does say that CO2 doesn’t cause much warming. Empirical equilibrium sensitivity measures to about half the Arrhenius value. In other words the hydrocycle is a negative feedback not a positive one.

          60

    • #
      MemoryVault

      .
      Interesting to note that the “consensus statement” linked to was prepared for presentation at the Gleneagles G8 Summit in July, 2005. It is nearly a decade old. Also interesting to read the following in the “Notes and References” section of the original statement (link here):

      1. This statement concentrates on climate change associated with global warming.

      Since there hasn’t been any statistically significant global warming for over a decade and a half, I wonder how many of those scientific organisations would be prepared to reaffirm their support of the statement today.

      Also interesting to note that the statement was based on claims made in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report(AR3). Given that even the IPCC itself is in the process of furiously back-pedaling on those claims in the upcoming AR5, it looks increasingly like “171 organizations on the list that span all continents outside of Antarctica” all got it hopelessly wrong.

      .
      So much for “consensus”.

      90

      • #
        Michael the Realist

        Actually it has been updated regularly and has increased. Far from warming stopped the 2001 to 2010 decade was the hottest on the instrumental record globally, on every continent, on land, on ocean and over both hemispheres. When taking natural factors into account 2011 and 2012 where the hottest la nina affected years on the record and that is not including other sources of energy increasing such as the oceans and Arctic melting. So only by cherry picking and ignoring the whole body of evidence, the science and the data do you get to make a statement like you have made. Latest statement by AGU above and one from WMO below. Would you like the latest statement from NOAA as well?

        Also the statement above, promoting their stardom as astronauts is a plead from authority, though in this case no qualifications or science.

        “A decade is the minimum possible timeframe for meaningful assessments of climate change,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “WMO’s report shows that global warming was significant from 1971 to 2010 and that the decadal rate of increase between 1991-2000 and 2001-2010 was unprecedented. Rising concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are changing our climate, with far reaching implications for our environment and our oceans, which are absorbing both carbon dioxide and heat.”
        “Natural climate variability, caused in part by interactions between our atmosphere and oceans – as evidenced by El Niño and La Niña events – means that some years are cooler than others. On an annual basis, the global temperature curve is not a smooth one. On a long-term basis the underlying trend is clearly in an upward direction, more so in recent times” said Mr Jarraud.
        http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/images/clip_image002_006.gif
        http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_976_en.html

        09

        • #
          Heywood

          “A decade is the minimum possible timeframe for meaningful assessments of climate change,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “WMO’s report shows that global warming was significant from 1971 to 2010 and that the decadal rate of increase between 1991-2000 and 2001-2010 was unprecedented. Rising concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are changing our climate, with far reaching implications for our environment and our oceans, which are absorbing both carbon dioxide and heat.”
          “Natural climate variability, caused in part by interactions between our atmosphere and oceans – as evidenced by El Niño and La Niña events – means that some years are cooler than others. On an annual basis, the global temperature curve is not a smooth one. On a long-term basis the underlying trend is clearly in an upward direction, more so in recent times” said Mr Jarraud.
          http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/images/clip_image002_006.gif
          http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_976_en.html

          Is this like the 100th time you have spammed us with this particular post?? How many more times will you cut and paste it? What was it that Fly said about thread bombing?

          50

        • #
          Bruce of Newcastle

          Far from warming stopped the 2001 to 2010 decade was the hottest on the instrumental record globally, on every continent, on land, on ocean and over both hemispheres.

          Michael – As I said above: so what?

          The point of science is to explain the reason for such observations.

          The Sun was at a multi millenial peak of activity last decade, and the ocean cycles were at peak too. They neatly explain the temperature record.

          The IPCC ensemble models fail to model the temperatures of the last 16 years because they omit these significant variables.

          The point of course is that if they did include them the inferred climate sensitivity would calculate to about 0.7 C/doubling. And the reason for funding those 73 groups of climate modellers would disappear.

          60

        • #
          MemoryVault

          Michael,

          . . . other sources of energy increasing such as the oceans and Arctic melting

          The “missing” ATMOSPHERIC heat is not in the oceans.
          NET energy transfer is FROM the oceans, TO the atmosphere.
          It is called The Water Cycle, and it is taught in Primary School (pretty pictures here).

          A warmer atmosphere can slow down the rate of heat (energy) loss FROM the ocean, but it CANNOT transfer heat (energy) TO the ocean. There is no “missing (atmospheric) heat” in the ocean.

          Melting sea ice at either pole represents a NET energy transfer FROM the oceans TO the atmosphere and thence ultimately radiated out to space. In no way does it represent a source of energy increasing. Exactly the opposite, in fact.

          60

        • #
          Carbon500

          Michael:
          http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.C.gif shows the monthly mean global surface temperature anomalies from 1996 to 2012 relative to the period 1951-1980. This is why people are saying that there’s been no warming during the last 17 years or so. All we see is an oscillating series of spikes over a range of a degree or so.
          The Central England Temperature recored (CET) shows a cluster of annual average temperatures slightly below 11 degrees centigrade during the latter part of the 20th century. At no time in this record has the annual average exceeded 11 degrees, and this record goes back to 1659. I hope you’ve got a copy.
          Real temperatures, no modelling flights of fancy. And CO2 in 1996 was 360ppm, now it’s 400.
          I’d say that this doesn’t bode well for the idea of man-made global warming.

          10

        • #
          Eddie Sharpe

          Rising concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are changing our climate, with far reaching implications for our environment and our oceans, which are absorbing both carbon dioxide and heat.”

          As warming oceans release Carbon Dioxide, is the above arm waving blather really from the WMO or just poorly cited ?

          00

    • #
      Manfred

      Michael #18 states:

      Its funny that individuals don’t accept the science and complain of special interest groups and individuals perverting and influencing the science, when in reality science speaks as one voice

      Some Una Voce science for you:

      First: here’s one historical context of a non-problem:

      Vostock icecore reconstruction over the last 420,000 yrs.

      Next:

      The authoritative voice you admire of the much vaunted IPCC AR5 draft, the ‘scientific consensus’ Figure 1.4 from the AR5 draft

      And:

      Temperatures during 2012, and indeed so far this year, are exactly the same as the average of the last 16 years. This has nothing to do with the choice of start year, and there is nothing to suggest that current temperatures are being influenced by untypical ENSO or any other conditions.

      It cannot be disputed – warming stopped 16 years ago.

      And:

      Two new companion papers published in Ocean Science
      Matthews, J. B. R.: Comparing historical and modern methods of sea surface temperature measurement – Part 1: Review of methods, field comparisons and dataset adjustments, Ocean Sci., 9, 683-694, doi:10.5194/os-9-683-2013, 2013. and Matthews, J. B. R. and

      Matthews, J. B.: Comparing historical and modern methods of sea surface temperature measurement – Part 2: Field comparison in the central tropical Pacific, Ocean Sci., 9, 695-711, doi:10.5194/os-9-695-2013, 2013.
      call into question the data and methods used to construct global sea surface temperature records of the past 150 years.

      “We suggest that reliable correction for such warm errors is not possible since they are largely of unknown origin and can be offset by real near-surface temperature gradients.”

      and you say: “When natural factors are taken into account…”
      As I understand it, there is now a de novo grudging acknowledgement of the role that the solar cycle may take in climate, Ocean vulcanism, warming under Greenland and on. The landscape of natural influence is expanding rapidly it seems, almost on a daily basis, whilst the atmospheric sensitivity to infinitesimal changes in CO2 descends ever closer to one.

      And finally:

      NOAA Confirms Model-Defying Global Temperature Stagnation…2012 Was Among Coolest In 21st Century
      “…the stagnation of the last 15 years defies all computer model projections, thus confirming that the models all exaggerated CO2 climate sensitivity. In order for the models to be correct, the global temperature over the last 6 years would have to be 0.2 to 0.3°F warmer.”

      The fact remains, the AGW and CAGW in particular remains a hypothesis searching for evidence. The signature so to speak, is looking for a pen.

      110

      • #
        Michael the Realist

        Do you understand the concept of valid and honest sources? You talk about the IPCC AR5 draft which instead points to the discredited Watts blog. Then you claim NOAA confirms ‘model defying …’ which instead points to the all tricks zone blog. Your vostok ice core reconstruction is irrelevent to the current debate (nobody disputes that the climate changes), then you indisputable warming stopped link goes to, lo and behold, what a surprise’ another blog. The only science is the ocean temp discussion but the warming of the deeper oceans can still be seen without the old methods.

        SO basically much to do about nothing in your post said in a really long winded way. Finally, what did NOAA ACTUALLY SAY…

        http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2013/20130806_stateoftheclimate.html
        “Many of the events that made 2012 such an interesting year are part of the long-term trends we see in a changing and varying climate — carbon levels are climbing, sea levels are rising, Arctic sea ice is melting, and our planet as a whole is becoming a warmer place,” said Acting NOAA Administrator Kathryn D. Sullivan, Ph.D. “This annual report is well-researched, well-respected, and well-used; it is a superb example of the timely, actionable climate information that people need from NOAA to help prepare for extremes in our ever-changing environment.”

        09

        • #
          MemoryVault

          .
          I repeat, Michael, there is no NET heat (energy) transfer FROM the atmosphere, TO the ocean. The OBSERVED and MEASURED transfer of heat (energy) is FROM the oceans, TO the atmosphere, and then ultimately to space.

          There is no “missing heat” hiding in the ocean deeps.
          The reason you, Trenberth, Mann and the others can’t find the “missing heat” is because there ISN’T any.

          50

        • #
          Bruce of Newcastle

          Michael – You are insulting Mr Watts and Mr Gosselin yet do not wish to discuss the science, or better still the actual data.

          The way science works is this:

          1. Data is collected
          2. It is interpreted by humans of differing degrees of fallibility
          3. It is published by journal editors and peer reviewers with different ideological propensities
          4. The resulting papers are commented upon by people such as Anthony Watts, Pierre Gosselin and John Cook
          5. We humble blog commenters comment on the comments.

          I propose to you, Michael, that we discuss (1.) which is the data. The data is the source of it all. And it shows that CO2 is not the sole driver of the temperature increase that we as humans have measured.

          And if you choose to look at the data with as few biasses as possible you will find that CO2 does little. Not enough to justify impoverishing us through carbon taxes and insane government policies.

          But by all means put forward some data that we can discuss. Or some pal peer reviewed papers. I am quite ready to discuss the science without resorting to ad hominem attacks on anyone.

          50

        • #
          Heywood

          “discredited Watts blog”

          In what way is his blog ‘discredited’? Because Michael (or Michael2) says it is?? The whole blog?

          80

          • #
            Michael the Realist

            Watts has shown his extreme confirmation bias repeatedly. For instance he went on record that he would accept Mullers temperature results regardless of outcome because he accepted the method, the scientist and the source of funding (fossil fuel). When Muller found that the temperature record was corrected Watts went into excuse mode and would not accept it. He has also made Arctic ice recovery predictions that have not eventutated and every year after an extreme melt, he makes a big deal about it refreezing again in winter, not very scientific.

            Then the creme de a creme, his efforts to try to blame all the warming on the urban heat island effect. Despite the fact that peer reveiwed study after peer reveiwed study finds the effect negligible. He was unable to get his own faulty science past review but will not accept the science. Hence his lack of scientific credibility, he spends all his time trying to prove his pre ordained confirmation bias, rather than following the science.

            04

            • #

              Anthony Watts gave Muller the benefit of the doubt. Muller abused that — pretended he was a “Converted” skeptic when he never was (we have the quotes), and produced another inadequate series. Watts analyzed the classification system of temperature sensors, made it more accurate, got results that were bleeding obvious (yes heat does rise off concrete and airports do influence thermometers).

              And Michael-the-anonymous turns up to tell us (again and again) the same things he’s said before in his 500+ comments, which we’ve replied too, and he ignores.

              Michael, you can’t keep coming here to drop advertising slogans that get knocked down and then keep posting them as if the conversation hasn’t already happened.

              If you are not a bot, you might as well be.

              50

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                Mullers results have been peer reviewed, which is a better result than Watts has been able to do. Whether he is a converted skeptic or otherwise is not relevent, is it? He did a study, his methods were approved, the money came from mining, it got peer reveiwed and has been published. Isn’t that the main point?

                The UHI effect has been examined repeatedly, I believe even Watts name was on one of the studies that found that its effect on the temperature record is negligible. It is a non issue. Yes it does exist, but its effect is small and is accounted for in some series.

                I do reply to most questions and comments, but there is one of me, and whenever I post I get multiple responses and questions from many users. Some users ask me the same questions, already answered, over and over again like I have never answered it. That you don’t like my answer is fine, but that does not change the fact that it was answered. Commentors here do repeat the same thing over and over themselves and that seems to be ok? Obviously my answers are not going to change, they are based on the actual science, if someone says it has not warmed for 16 years (repeatedly) then my answer on that cherry pick and the fact that the 2001 to 2010 decade was the hottest will also not change.

                I provide actual sources from actual scientific organisations or the peer reveiwed science when possible. I could just make opinions stated as facts like many other commentors do or repeatedly post links to my favorite blog site, also like most here do. Which do you prefer?

                03

              • #

                Peer review is useful (sometimes) but doesn’t “prove” anything in and of itself. Since most official climate scientists have gravy train government funded support, while most skeptics do not, obviously there are many reviewers who smile on alarmist papers, and few available to do the opposite. That you cite human institutions rather than observations to support your case tells us all we need to know about how “scientific” it is.

                An an older study of Watts hardly supersedes his new and better work. The fact that it’s hard for him to publish the new work, despite it’s banal common-sense conclusion, could be because “peer review” is a weak, non-rigorous human institution, like any committee report. Yawn.

                Yes, fair point, the conversation on both sides can get repetitive, but you have no excuse for repeatedly pretending Muller is a skeptic when we have repeatedly provided quotes showing that he has always believed CO2 was pollution. Time to move on… Muller’s fake skepticism is obvious.

                Keep providing links to those papers. I do appreciate it.

                20

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                ‘Gravy train funded…’ is merely excuses. This is not how science works, the science is the science, the government responds to what the science is telling it. If the science was telling the opposite the governments would be doing cartwheels in glee. This is of no benefit to them, it is difficult political sell and has cost many politicians and whole governments their jobs. It is merely a weak conspiracy theory excuse to explain away why your side has so little peer reviewed science.

                That Watts can not get his work published is a reflection of the work, nothing more, nothing less. Intimating that it proves peer reviewed is false is nothing more than another weak conspiracy theory excuse. Science is a competitive business, and publications and scientists would fall over themselves proving someone else is wrong. It provides controversy and provides fame for the scientist and sales for the publication. Nothing is broken except Watts science.

                I point to the observations and data most of the time. This whole post is a claim from fame/authority post with no basis in science or qualifications and is clearly baseless.

                01

              • #

                “‘Gravy train funded…’ is merely excuses. This is not how science works,”

                But it’s how people work. Or do you think scientists are not human?

                Your quaint idea that scientists are angels who would happily produce conclusions that would slow their careers, stop the junkets, and reduce their status is nice, but when you grow up, you’ll realize that this is a very difficult ask for most people.

                There are some who can do it, but like Happer, Michaels, Miscolczi, Bellamy, Carter, Salby, De freitas, it is not an easy career path to tread.

                And it’s not a conspiracy — it’s a systematic effect of monopsonistic funding – which may have been set up with good intentions — but doesn’t work in science, like it doesn’t work in business. Science is competitive? Just point me out the rewards offered to the people who showed Michael Mann how to do his job right? Exactly.

                You say you point to observations and data, but that’s not what I’m seeing… your argument that authority is mindless reasoning doesn’t quite wash coming from the man who raves about the consensus of b-grade modelers whose models are falsified. Does this mean you’ll stop using argument from authority?

                10

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Climate science has put up a “body of knowledge”, and then relies on that to “prove” that the climate is changing in an anomalous way, and from that “proof” it then politically “asserts” that it is modern civilisation that is causing the change. Politically, the elected non-scientists then “believe” that this process can be “reversed” by increasing taxation, applying tariffs, and attending conferences.

          Can you spot the point where rational thinking ceases?

          60

          • #
            ExWarmist

            RW says…

            Can you spot the point where rational thinking ceases?

            You can’t cease what hasn’t started.

            40

        • #
          Manfred

          You can check the links to sources from those sites Michael. YOU DO THE WORK.

          20

  • #
    Ace

    Hahahahahaha….thats bitter laughter folks…haha…haha… WHAT HAVE I BEEN SAYING EVERY TIME NASA IS MENTIONED?

    So you (to whomever this applies) still think NASA endorsing anything is a positive indication of its legitimacy?

    40

    • #
      Michael the Realist

      YES, NASA accepts the science as does virtually every internationally recognised scientific organisation in the world, most of the climate scientist and most of the peer reviewed science. Weak attacks on individuals and scientific organisations not based in science from people using their fame as astronauts are little more than a sad attempt at discrediting science for special interest groups.

      Very sad indeed, and you people fall for it and accept it because it fits [SNIP] ED

      [might it be your own confirmation bias peeking through?] ED

      09

      • #
        Ace

        Michael…you dont even know what Im talking about…its LENR that I refer to people saying they endorse, [Snip -Fly].

        Hes like some little yapping six year old.

        40

      • #
        Bruce of Newcastle

        Michael – You haven’t been listening. Or reading.

        NASA GISS has an ideological bee in their bonnet about CAGW.

        NASA GSFC does not. They recognise that the Sun has an indirect influence on climate via the proposed Svensmark mechanism.

        As I linked above. Many former NASA scientists and astronauts put their names to a letter to the NASA Administrator to point out exactly as I have done – that the data does not support the hypothesis of CAGW. Do you really think under an Administration such as Mr Obama’s that serving members of NASA would dare likewise register their objection? The CAGW fraternity is very vindictive, as we have seen many times. Even scientists have to eat.

        30

        • #
          Ace

          Bruce…you aint listening either, my comment was nothing whatsoever to do with climate.

          10

        • #
          Bruce of Newcastle

          Yes, Ace, I know what you have been talking about. I was replying to Michael.

          BTW I do keep a weather eye on Rossi. I’ve a lot of patents of my own from questioning established ideas of what is possible and what is not. Which isn’t to say I accept what he says. I’m still in the ‘keeping an open mind’ phase Rossi-wise.

          40

          • #
            Ace

            I know…but others get so carried away with enthusiasm for a thing sometimes I feel its my duty to reject the trend.

            10

  • #
    NikFromNYC

    That picture looked familiar, since a crop of it ended up in my Astronaut Eye Candy infographic:

    http://a2.img.mobypicture.com/8e1234d649766adfef528feb438395b9_large.jpg

    10

    • #
      NikFromNYC

      “GISS, a NASA organization located in a midtown Manhattan office building”

      Actually it’s on the top corner of the far uptown residential building that has touristy Tom’s Diner just below it, about four blocks from where notorious skeptic -=NikFromNYC=- lives, all just down Broadway from Columbia University and just above the Upper West Side.

      30

  • #
    ROM

    These are the observations and thoughts of an old farmer who has watched animals, people and groups of all sorts of persuasions and has been associated with [ agricultural ] science and scientists at various levels all his working life.

    Mankind, like all animals, moves in herds.
    Only we call then tribes or groups or Parties or even families but they all have the same basic characteristics`.
    They all consist of individuals all closely connected by blood or ideas or belief systems or in our world, professions,
    The tribes all have similar structures just like a herd of animals with a high status central group around which the herd / tribe / group coalesce.
    The grouping consist of smaller internal groups of varying sizes and individuals with varying degrees of status right down to a fringe following, all of whom befriend similar like minded individuals and who negotiate, argue and fight to try and get and / or maintain an elevated status within the group ; ie in the herd context, get the best access to the girls who have their own internal status rankings and who want the highest status boys!

    In the human context, the groupings / tribes collectively are generally quite insular and often regard themselves as morally, ethically, ideologically and intellectually very superior to all the other tribes and groups.
    Even more when those other tribes and groups hold positions or ideological territory that is in opposition to their own basic ideological and intellectual beliefs.

    We see these exact tribal / herd like traits as a very prominent characteristic of the Science profession of today where a high degree of an often quite arrogant assumptions of intellectual superiority over what is an increasingly a better educated and increasingly sophisticated general public has become one of the defining attributes of much of Science and it’s practitioners today.

    Climate Science in particular and all it’s hanger ons, groupies and a large part of it’s central core grouping of so called climate science practitioners with the alarmist branch of climate science along with it’s cult like groupies being the major perpetrators of this [ wrongly ] assumed moral and intellectual superiority over the rest of our entire society..

    Another of the defining attributes of these tribes and groups, particularly the more ideologically dogmatic groups and tribes is the rabid dismissing of any criticism at all of the group and the deliberate denigration of anybody or any other group who dares to criticise or questions the central and dominant central ideological tenets of the tribe/ group.
    This of course leads to an increasing trend towards a high degree of insularity and a mind set that both prevents the tribe from ascertaining it’s true standing in the eye of the public sea it is surrounded by and also a mind set that prevents the tribe/ group from changing and therefore in the long run, it’s increasing isolation from the general population and unless there is radical change within the tribe / group, it’s long term demise.

    And that is where I believe a lot of Science stands today.

    After that rant the “why” of this post.

    Scientists like all groups / tribes are a somewhat closed group who have an inherent intellectual superiority complex which many or perhaps most scientists believe makes them intellectually and only quite recently in some cases, morally and ethically quite superior to the general public who pay their bills and salaries,
    This relatively closed grouping and a mind set is preventing much of today’s science world from recognising that the public perceptions of Science and particularly a very large section of it’s claimants to be scientists, note I said “claimants” , are changing and changing rapidly.
    The Science tribe is failing to recognise that the Internet in particular is like the Salome of biblical times and her dance of seven veils.
    Science is losing it’s subtle allure of the promises to be had as she dances or as science is seen to perform and increasingly fails to seduce with it’s subtle promises of better things to be had.
    Instead the Internet is stripping away those seven veils that science and it’s practitioners have hidden it’s ugliness behind for all that time past and as those veils are stripped away from the Salome of “Science”, the true blemishes of much of science and even the outright ugliness of some of science and it’s practitioners are being revealed in all their glory to the public who pay the entire bill for the dance.

    Up to this time nearly all of the Science tribe have been too insular, too arrogant and too laden with hubris to even contemplate what is happening in the public’s increasingly changing perceptions of Science and scientists and for that Science will pay a high price indeed in the times to come.

    Perhaps we should ask on what grounds can someone be called a Scientist?
    Lawyers, accountants, engineers, doctors, you name it in the professions , all have to be registered in some central professional registry and approved to practice their professions.
    Nor is an accountant’s or lawyers advice on some medical procedure to be taken as authorative and definitive.
    Yet we have suposedly authorative statements on Climate science from economists and biologists and etc whose only claim to have any expertise on the subject is a string of inconsequential letters after their name.

    The below is bearing in mind the 1922 Nobel prize winning physicist Niels Bohr’s dictum; “Prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future.”

    Because of the almost complete lack of recognition by the science herd / tribe of the increasingly negative perceptions of Science by increasing numbers of the public and as a result the seeming inability of Science to clean up it’s own act and get it’s own house in order, others will do the job for Science and bring it back into the real world of responsibility for it’s pronouncements and actions and for it’s conduct and it’s ethics.
    One such action could well be that due to the arrogance and hubris of much of today’s science practitioners and the increasing incidence of what are now rapidly been seen and proven as no more than truly ridiculous publicity garnering and funding grant enhancing claims particularly in the present climate science debacle, there will no doubt be pressure brought to bear some time in the future that changes be made to the dispensation that scientists so far enjoy re the impact of their public utterances and their public forays into the political policy field.

    Science and it’s practitioners will be made fully, legally and personally responsible for their public utterances on science related topics
    The end result being that science and it’s practitioners will no doubt with much screaming and kicking, finally be made fully and personally and legally responsible for their publicly expressed claims and for the consequences of any public reaction and outcomes from any public claims they make and on which individuals, organisations and governments act on the basis of those claims which are then proven to be grossly wrong and incorrect and damaging to the persons or organisations who acted on the basis of those supposedly science based claims.

    And that is no different than the same criteria and standards that apply to every other profession and which should be applied to Science in all it’s variations.
    Just as in any other profession particularly as so much of what passes for Science these days has such a profound effect on the public and political processes.

    40

    • #

      “Lawyers, accountants, engineers, doctors, you name it in the professions , all have to be registered in some central professional registry and approved to practice their professions.”

      Being registered can be accomplished by simply filling out a form and having it filed in a central repository. Registration by itself is totally meaningless no matter how impressive the name of the organization offering it happens to be. Send me $25 and I will register you as anything you want and send you a fancy certificate with an impressive sounding name to prove you are registered. Will it be worth $25? Ha! You have to be joking. It won’t be worth the paper it’s printed on.

      The important questions to ask are:

      Who approves the approvers?
      How do we know their approval is valid and meaningful?
      While we are at it, who approves the approvers of the approvers?

      What are the standards of judgement?
      Who set the standards?
      Who determined those who set the standards were competent to set them?

      It is a tangle of infinite regressions of approvals.

      The bottom line, you are going to have to make the judgement about the particular specialist yourself based upon your own requirements and standards of judgement. You either set the requirements, set the standards, and make the judgement your self or it’s nothing but a crap shoot. Blindly relying on the approval of others to make the judgement for you is no better than relying on the 97% consensus of the believers in CAGW. It is full of sound and fury but signifying nothing.

      40

    • #
      Michael the Realist

      A fairly menaingless rant that signifies that those with actual superiority complexes are those that think they can make judgements on science based on facebook pages and blog sites without any qualifications, research or science to back you up. We have gone back to the dark ages of science, before the age of enlightenment, before Newton and Galileo, before the scientific method where science was a thought bubble, if you thought it and it made sense to you (with your inherent biases) then it was obviously correct. No science, research or proof needed.

      Again, AGW is accepted by virtually every internationally recognised scientific organisation in the world, 97% of practising and publishing climate scientists and is brought in to question by less than 3% of the science. To persist in trying to limit it to fanatics or religious leanings is ignoring the fact that the majority of people who do not accept the science are the ones basing desicions on religious, ideological and profit grounds rather than the actual science.

      013

      • #
        ROM

        Yep Michael2!
        We who pay the bills, as always, eventually get to make the judgments.
        And a lot of us, in fact an increasing number of us, are no longer very happy about paying the bills.
        Judgement is being made and for your rabid climate alarmist ideology it doesn’t look good.
        Those Salome like seductive scientific veils are being stripped off by the ubiquitousness of Internet and as those veils that have long hidden climate science come off, a very corrupted body of climate alarmist science is being revealed for all to see.

        60

        • #
          MemoryVault

          .
          I don’t think Michael2 really has any understanding of what you wrote, ROM.

          I have a personal theory that the reason Steffen, Karoly, Flannery and the rest continually get away with ever increasingly outrageous and contradictory claims about “climate science”, is because both politicians and the media look upon them as their “get out of jail free” card.

          When the time comes and the dying starts in earnest, the pollies and the journos will simply claim “we were only acting on the best scientific advice available”, and point the finger at the BoM, the CSIRO, the Climate Commission, and certain universities, and the employees thereof. They will be the ones the tar and feather mobs will go after.

          Much the same thing will happen in the USA with NASA, and in the UK with their MET Office and the CRU.

          It won’t be pretty.

          30

      • #
        Michael P

        You claim that

        Again, AGW is accepted by virtually every internationally recognized scientific organization in the world, 97% of practicing and publishing climate scientists and is brought in to question by less than 3% of the science.

        I’d like to see you provide evidence to prove that,every member of every scentific organization in the world agrees with that statement. Same with the 97% of practicing scientists quote. As you don’t provide any evidence whatsoever,are we supposed to take your word as gospel? What you have said is is known as argumentum ad populum which is “The basic idea
        is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most
        people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

        It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it.
        After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as “the world is flat”, “humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour”, “the sun survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour”, “the sun revolves around the earth” but all these claims turned out to be false.

        50

      • #

        Clearly you fall in the category of “those with actual superiority complexes are those that think they can make judgements on science based on Facebook pages and blog sites without any qualifications, research or science to back you up”.

        You have zero knowledge of me, my academic/scientific qualifications, nor my ability to deliver what I say I can deliver. You know nothing about about my over 45 year career in the medical, metallurgical, aerospace, radiography, non-destructive testing, and computer software industries.

        Yet you say I have gone back to the dark ages. By that, you have admirably demonstrated your total lack of qualifications to say what you are saying about me.

        What then is your qualifications to be able to say anything you do say?

        How do you know that your internationally recognized scientific organizations and publishing climate scientists can be relied upon? That is except for the fact they are recognized and published?

        Who recognized them? Who accepted the papers to be published? What qualified them to recognize and accept? Who established them as credible authorities? How can you rely on those who established them as credible authorities?

        So, once again, we have a tangle of infinite regressions of acceptance, certifications, and recognitions. It’s turtles all the way down without end!

        Somewhere, sometime, you are going to have to make a judgment for and by yourself. You will have to commit and accept the responsibility for the consequences. This even though you try to evade such a thing. For by that evasion YOU have decided and, though you may try to evade the fact, there will be consequences from that decision. The consequences won’t be pretty. In fact, they are on full display within every one of your posts on this blog.

        120

      • #
        crakar

        Michael,

        You raise a very interesting and quite valid point, one which i have pondered over many times. So i would like to ask you the same question i have often asked myself if i may.

        If you were presented with two peer reviewed scientific papers similar in nature and the first found in favour of AGW and the second found not to then which paper would you accept and which would you reject (and possibly reject both) and on what basis would you come to this conclusion.

        Regards

        crakar

        31

      • #
        wayne, s. Job

        Michael, It may or may not be very important but to me it is. Early last century after much measurement of the planets temperate the standard was set at 14.7C.

        Oddly the zero base line for AGW measured temperate anomalies is set at 14C. That the current temperate is only a little above this zero line tends to make me think that the earths temperature is normal or a little below normal.

        Looking at the anomaly at the moment even with the fudge factors placed by your wonderful GISS in the temperatures, it is a fair bet that the earth has cooled over the last 50 years. That in spite of a few rampant sun cycles. Now that the sun is sleeping, it may get some what cooler.

        I would suggest that you put your head outside the box you are in and look at some real science.

        40

  • #

    Notice how what we said in earlier Threads about Michael not being one person but a Committee has now been proved.

    Note how there are now 2 persons named Michael using the same icon and style of communication.

    One is called Michael, and the other is called Michael2.

    Now Michael may reply and say that he’s really just one person, but, hmm, Michael, why did you add the number 2 after your name in the posts following being asked not to Thread bomb for fear of being banned.

    Oh Michael, (and your friend Micheal2) you are so transparent.

    Tony.

    [Michael the warmer is being changed to Michael2 by moderators because the earlier Michael P has requested that he be distinguished from Michael the warmer. It will take a while for us to change the posts and Michael has failed to respond to an e-mail requesting that he change his posting name] ED

    61

    • #
      Heywood

      Interesting Tony,

      I didn’t notice that.

      Are we seeing a return of the Dr Adam Smith Committee? ;)

      30

    • #
      crakar

      He is one the same Tony…….he is a skitza…..schnitza…frenic oh hell you know what i mean.

      Cheers

      21

    • #
      Ace

      You only need to worry when its Robert Six (see Peter Serafaniwiz)

      10

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Maybe the first Michael has perfected human cloning, he does seem quite a brilliant scientist, so you never know.

      30

    • #
      Michael2

      lol, your only argument returns, its [SNIP]!!!!

      08

    • #
      Michael the Realist

      Actually it is easily fixed, moderator or Jo can you confirm that the 2 michaels are from different email addresses. Mind you I doubt you guys will accept it, [SNIP] ED.

      08

      • #
        Bruce of Newcastle

        Michael the WordPress icon is specific to the email address. Both Michaels have the same icon.

        I cannot of course see your email address, but the owner of the blog can. This has at times caused some amusement.

        30

        • #
          Tel

          He seems to have gone away for a while after you pointed that out.

          Amazing what the evidence of direct observation will do when a falsifiable statement is put to the test. We should teach this methodology in schools.

          20

      • #

        Then, as per usual, you fell right in it again.

        Why would you need to add the 2 after your name if it was not for the purpose of evasion. Doing it once could be explained as a momentary typo, but it happened more than once, so there you are Michael, again trying to be underhanded, you cretin.

        Tony.

        40

        • #
          Michael P

          I suspect that Michael2 has joined to further muddy the water between me and the other Michaels. This is getting to the extreme of stupidity,which needs to be sorted.

          40

        • #
          AndyG55

          My guess would be a group from within the Climate Commission or maybe UNSW climate fraud group (or similar), having a last hurrah before unemployment kicks in.

          30

        • #
          AndyG55

          Or maybe Karoly or one of the other climate trogs has offered to pass a couple of really low end 1st year students if they man the slime desk.

          20

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        I was under the impression that there was only one michael – but it wasn’t you.

        20

      • #

        Michael2,

        That kind of proof doesn’t wash. I have the possibility of using 240 different email addresses. It an a lot of other capability costs me only $5/month. For $10/month I can have a 1000. However, I need only one because I represent my self as me. I don’t have to hide my identity because I have nothing to hide.

        30

      • #

        Michael, I sent an email this morning and you posted 15 comments over the next 6 hours after I sent it without checking that address. This is the problem with commenters who use emails that are not their main accounts (or may not even exist). We end up discussing “admin” on the thread. Someone posting 20 comments a day needs to supply a real email.

        30

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      ” [Michael the warmer is being changed to Michael2 ...] ”

      or the warmiste formerly known as Michael …

      10

  • #
    farmerbraun

    This is frustrating . There is some good scientific discussion here being disrupted by someone who is refusing to engage with the science. Could we please have it dealt with?

    50

    • #
      MemoryVault

      I’m inclined to agree, Farmerbraun

      While I’m generally opposed to censorship, there must surely be a limit of the number of times a discredited meme can be repeated as fact, in any one thread, or concurrent threads.

      I mean, how long ago was it now that the “97% of all climate scientists” meme was shown to actually be 75 out of 77 cherry-picked responses from several thousand? At least a couple of years.

      And yet we have Michael showing up day after day repeating the same old discredited crap over and over, presumably in the fond but forlorn belief that if he just repeats it often enough, for long enough, we will eventually accept it as fact.

      90

      • #
        Michael P

        I am in total agreement with you MV.I’ve run into this argument on several occasions,and when I bring up that matter,they resort to the “your a denier” argument. Saying so,does not make it so automatically. Proof is required.

        30

        • #
          Safetyguy66

          Well also Im amazed anyone who claims to be in touch with scientific methods would even make the claim “a consensus exists therefor the hypothesis is proven”, its a bit old fashioned. I think the last time that argument held any weight it was being enforced with hot pincers and the rack.

          I think it would be fair to say (given how long it was taught in schools etc) that the “majority” of scientists, possibly as many as 97% thought Pluto was a planet, hows that working out?

          30

          • #
            ExWarmist

            Ah ha, – the Green dream that Authority = Truth.

            20

            • #
              Eddie Sharpe

              Aye, some need their truth picked out and handed down for them.
              That has always been the way and it has always been open to corruption, since the witch doctors of old.
              The truth will out in the though, thanks to thinkers, to individuals to blogs like this and to the Internet.

              10

    • #
      Michael the Realist

      Multiple sources. Peer reviewed surveys, and your excuses ignore the fact that you have had plenty of time to conduct surveys of your own. You don’t because you have made that mistake before, when Muller with fossil fuel money and Watts agreement in method found that the climate scientists temp records were correct, even underestimated. It is a fact. You also ignore that it was 82% of earth scientists in general out of 3146, increasing to 97% as there qualifications and active publishing in climate science increased. Most climate scientists agree that AGW is real, get over it.

      “Our results reveal that survey respondents generally agree about the nature, causes, and
      consequences of climate change, and are in agreement with IPCC findings. We also found that there is
      strong support for a variety of policy initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
      http://bush.tamu.edu/istpp/scholarship/journals/ClimateScientistsPerspectives_ClimaticChange.pdf

      “82% of 3146 Earth Scientists responding to a survey agreed that man is contributing to warming. As their specialty in climate science increased so did their belief in mans contribution to warming to a whopping 97% for the most active climate scientists.”
      http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

      “Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.”
      http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

      06

      • #
        Bruce of Newcastle

        Michael – I agree that AGW exists. In the Zimmerman and Doran survey I would have been counted one of the 97%.

        So what?

        I say that the evidence and data show conclusively that the impact of CO2 is small. Small warming, limited by the logarithmic relationship between CO2 and its effect, is still AGW.

        But who cares if a small amount of warming occurs? The question of importance is is it dangerous. And the answer to that is no.

        The problem here is that first the question is poorly constructed, and secondly the jump to CO2 emission control policy is unjustified. Indeed it is morally wrong to control CO2 emissions at the cost of many lives when the gas is effectively harmless.

        I am quite happy to provide citations for everything I have said in this comment, if you are prepared to discuss it. So far you have ignored everything I have said, and all the evidence I have put. That is a religious response not a scientific one.

        20

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      A quota for commenting, like they have in all good parliaments to prevent domination by one party, wouldn’t be censorship. Based on recent posting history ‘Michael’ might have the opportunity to comment again , sometime in the coming months. The ‘Speaker’ , in the shape of Jo & her Mods would of course have to exercise their discretion in applying it for the good of all.

      40

  • #
    ExWarmist

    Clearly Walter Cunningham is not a Climate Scientist.

    (Of the Alarmist sort – Which is why he can see through all the BS…)

    30

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      Haven’t scientists of the Climate variety become synonymous with troughers who make their living from ensuring there is a problem, along with politicians looking for a cause, bankers & other assorted bureaucrats ?
      Not forgetting the few proper scientists specialising in climate, who have enabled us to see through this charade.

      20

  • #
    manalive

    Just think about it, if it wasn’t for Jimmy Hansen and his mate Phil at CRU, we would all be blissfully unaware that the planet was headed for thermogeddon, we’d all be thinking the past thirty years was just a repeat of 1910 – 1940.

    50

    • #
      AndyG55

      And we would understand that 2015 – 2045 will be a repeat of 1940 – 1970, except maybe a bit cooler.

      The Current warm period is cooler than the Medieval Warm period, which was cooler than the Roman warm period,….. back to the Holocene OPTIMUM (note that word)

      The Earth is definitely cooling.

      We just happen to be on the top of a small plateau at the moment, hoping that its just a slow slope off the other side, rather than a precipice.

      40

    • #
      Michael the Realist

      http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators

      Apart from the fact Manalive that Hansen and Jones did not invent AGW, that was proposed over 100 years ago. Apart from the fact that the long term trend shows warming continued after a small lul and is much higher now and in fact that the 2001 to 2010 decade was the hottest on the instrumental record with the last 30 years leaving your 30 years in the dust for global temperature. That warming has continued despite natural fluctuations for over 100 years is not proof that AGW does not exist, without any other explanation it is basically proof that it does.

      Evidence of cooling is nonsense, 2011 and 2012 were the hottest la nina affected years on the record that follows the hottest decade. Get a grip.

      16

      • #
        Lars P

        Have you looked at the data you post or you’re just repeating nonsense without understanding what you say?
        Even the 5 year filter of the temperature that you post still shows the levelling and downtrend at the end.
        This even when we know how much tries NASA in particular to massage the data.

        Here are some of the GISS adjustments:
        http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/nasa-that-cooling-trend-in-alabama-wrecks-our-theory-lets-get-rid-of-it/
        http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/nasa-that-warm-period-in-norway-in-1940-wrecks-our-story-lets-get-rid-of-it/
        http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/iceland-adjustments-spread-to-norway-and-russia/
        http://professorinajatuksia.blogspot.co.at/2012/03/ilmastonmuutos-ja-ilmastotilastojen.html
        THere are many screen capture before and after the adjustments.
        Look at this NASA paper showing the US temperature in 1999:
        http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
        and how it changed with the time:
        http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/data-corruption-at-giss/

        Do you know that Antarctic mass variance shown by Grace satellite show actually positive – ice increase?
        It is only after adjusting for the continent sinking that the declining absolute ice is being shown.
        That adjustment is not based on actual measurements but on a model which is highly uncertain. Most papers find an increase in total Antarctic ice content:
        http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.at/2012/09/new-paper-finds-antarctic-peninsula-has.html
        Grace satellite data is showing Antarctic is gaining ice mass:
        http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.at/2012/09/grace-satellite-data-shows-antarctica.html

        Have you seen the El Nino index?
        http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/nino3_4.png
        It is really a stretch to sustain 2012 was La Nina. Warmest La Nina.
        Oh dear, get a grip and stop repeating nonsense.

        So get a grip and look at the data

        40

        • #
          Michael the Realist

          You read to many opinion blogs. Making adjustments as new data come in, as methods and the science improve etc are par for the course in the world of real science. New data has come in from sources that previously did not share, some places use different time of day reading, different equipment and the like. It is all well documented and open and just adds to the excuses that the skeptic community uses. Most of the time it sends the data to show more cooling than warming.

          You display very little actual scientific sources so are mainly influenced by people with a particular bias telling you what to think. Try and think for yourself. It is a fact that the 2001 to 2010 decade was the hottest on the instrumental record in every way possible and truly globally. It is a fact that sea levels are increasing at twice the rate of the last century average. It is a fact that the Arctic is collapsing faster than predicted and it is a fact that all the predictions, from extreme weather to species migrating are occurring in a manner consistent with climate change. 2011 and 2012 were la nina affected years and if you look at a historical graph of the ENSO cycle it is very apparent that the 1991 to 2000 decade was predominantly high el nino affected while 2001 to 2010 was predominantly neutral to la nina affected. The only main al nino years 2005 and 2010 are the hottest years on the record, even though they were mild el ninos. So how do you explain the hottest decade on the instrumental record right after a decade that was heavily el nino affected? It is apparent, just in the surface temp record, that warming has not stopped. Then include the Arctic and ocean energy increases it is a slam dunk. We are in big trouble and your excuses will not cut it anymore.

          http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/

          13

          • #
            Bruce of Newcastle

            Michael – I will impose on the mods with a large number of links here because at least you have tried to make a case for your position. Unfortunately most of what you have said is not supported by the climate data. (I do know where a lot of those claims come from, but no they aren’t supported by the data. Sorry.)

            I will start with ENSO. ENSO evidences the same ~60 year cycle as do the AMO, PDO, HadCRUT, sea level, rainfall and even sea ice extent. El Nino is more common during the high phase of the cycle, which peaked in the decade 2001-2010, and la Nina is more common in the low phase (see page 5 at the link).

            The hot decade of 2001-2010 is consistent with the Sun being at a historic activity maximum and the ocean cycle coincidentally at peak. The projection is both of these will now fall, and that is why the global temperature is now falling.

            The Arctic sea ice extent is not collapsing, it is roughly 1 Mkm^2 higher than last year. The models say it should be collapsing, but it is not.

            Global sea ice extent is above average, because the Antarctic is at record extent. How can you explain that by global warming?

            Extreme weather is presently at a record low, with tornadoes at a record low, and an all time high lack of NH hurricanes. ACE is low. There is actually more evidence to suggest that global warming decreases extreme weather than increases it.

            In short, everything you mention has a mainly natural explanation. We have no control over the Sun or the oceans. And CO2 has only a small empirical effect.

            But we already know the idiotic policies such as the carbon tax have major impact on people. Harmful impact. For nothing. Why should people be harmed for a lie?

            I am ready to discuss with you all this data, all the links. The evidence says no problem. Do you accept the ideology and illogical beliefs of the green religionists or do you accept actual science and data?

            20

          • #
            manalive

            ‘Michael the Realist’ are you still there?
            In my comment above I did not imply in any way that AGW was not real, it probably is, but on balance beneficial.
            I simply suggested that if Hansen and Jones had not fiddled with the 1940 – 1980 temperature data (which they clearly have), few would be aware of it or care.
            In your opinion is it OK for scientists who fervently believe, for instance, that increasing human CO2 emissions will lead to dangerous warming, even without evidence (there was no evidence of any post-war warming back in 1980), to ‘adjust’ data minimising cooling and exaggerating warming in order to alarm people and prompt action?

            20

            • #
              Michael the Realist

              As I have said elsewhere, science is continually improving and if new data comes in (as it has from countries not releasing it before) and if data has been gathered under different circumstances (different times of day, different areas etc) or if methods have improved, then yes, it is entireliy appropriate to improve your figures. The adjustments cause cooling as often as they cause warming and all other data sets show the same trend. You are looking for excuses.

              People should be alarmed, as the weather has shown over the last decade, we are no match for it.

              10

            • #
              Michael the Realist

              “The world experienced unprecedented high-impact climate extremes during the 2001-2010 decade, which was the warmest since the start of modern measurements in 1850 and continued an extended period of pronounced global warming.

              Precipitation and floods: The 2001-2010 decade was the second wettest since 1901. Globally, 2010 was the wettest year since the start of instrumental records.
              Most parts of the globe had above-normal precipitation during the decade. The eastern USA, northern and eastern Canada, and many parts of Europe and central Asia were particularly wet.
              According to the WMO survey, floods were the most frequently experienced extreme events over the course of the decade. Eastern Europe was particularly affected in 2001 and 2005, India in 2005, Africa in 2008, Asia (notably Pakistan, where 2 000 people died and 20 million were affected) in 2010, and Australia, also in 2010.”
              http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_976_en.html

              10

        • #
          Carbon500

          It’s also interesting to note that Michael has not made any comments on my post at 18.5.1.4 above referring him to two datasets (GISS and CET) showing an impressive lack of warming, concomitant with an increase of CO2 from 360ppm to 400ppm.

          30

      • #
        Eddie Sharpe

        No, coincidence is not proof ( in as much as there happened to be any coincidence, for parts of that period).

        20

      • #
        AndyG55

        Come back in a couple of years, bozo.

        Your warblings are meaningless and you will be proven wrong.

        As has happened to EVERY prediction made by your climate commission masters.

        10

      • #
        AndyG55

        The panic among the warmist bletheren is certainly setting in as they see their troughs starting to leak and their funds drying up.

        But they do need to employ more than a parrot.

        10

        • #
          AndyG55

          NCCARF were so useless that they got de-funded by the ALP.

          ACCARNSI will disappear as Uni funding for climate change is withdrawn after the election.

          We know the Libs will get rid of the Climate Commission trough, and the waste that goes along with it.

          The Libs will also hold back on implementing their stupid direct action plan, or turn it around to deliver better coal fired efficiency and achieve the unnecessary CO2 cuts that way, like the US has with gas.

          The global warming agenda/lie in Australia and around the world only has a few more breathes left in it.

          10

          • #
            Michael the Realist

            If we vote in the libs and they turn back the science several decades then they will be going against the tide. From places like Norway, British Columbia, Scotland and California increasing their taxes on carbon and responses to climate change. The US president throwing his full weight behind the science and doing everything he can to promote a cleaner US, China implementing carbon taxes and gearing up with research and production for a renewable industry revolution we will certainly be the ones going AGAINST the trend.

            Lets not become the global scientific backwater retreating to the dark ages and vote Labor. The only party with new ideas and an actual vision for the future. Lib try hard policies are all based on removing labor advances and copying their ideas but mangling them so that they are half hearted. No fresh ideas have been demonstrated, they are stuck in the howard years, without the boom.

            16

            • #
              Bruce of Newcastle

              Michael – The common factor between all the places you mentioned is they are run by governments of the progressive left. Regrettably most consensus climate scientists cannot seem to disengage their politics from their science, and they too are overwhelmingly of the left.

              I am sad about this. Australia needs parties who represent all the population, left and right. To see parties of the left fall into the tribal situation of rejecting science in favour of politics is very dangerous to the ALP. The Greens I don’t care about, they are a religious party. But the ALP is betraying their voters by adopting a lie just because the erroneous climate scientists find the truth unpalatable, both politically and personally.

              I am a scientist. I have always wanted to be a scientist. I am sad that science is perverted by these people who actively suppress the truth because it does not fit their ideology. Science should be apolitical. These idiots of the ‘consensus’ are destroying my profession as well as the ALP.

              I do urge ALP hierarchy to adopt the truth of AGW: that there is no evidence whatsoever that it is dangerous. That no carbon taxes can be justified – indeed they impoverish working class poor voters. If the ALP continues to be captured by liars with ideological agendas and reject the truth of the science they risk their party. Which I would be sad to see. No political party can survive as a party of proven liars. Voters are not so easily fooled.

              50

            • #
              Mark D.

              The US president throwing his full weight behind the science and doing everything he can to promote….

              Didn’t Obama have ties to a carbon trading house that is now bankrupt? Smart Labor racketeering there no doubt.

              20

            • #
              AndyG55

              No Michael, real science is done by FREE-thinkers,

              NOT by brainwashed imbeciles like you.

              Real science will again flourish once the PC/far-left agenda is thrown in the gutter where it belongs.

              10

            • #
              AndyG55

              Consensus never was, and never will be, SCIENCE.

              10

            • #
              AndyG55

              And the US president only has a short time left.
              He was put there by the ‘black’ vote and he is proving himself to be a total MORON.

              Hopefully Americans will wake up to reality soon, and all his climate crap will be dumped down a crevasse where it belongs.

              20

            • #
              AndyG55

              And you are about as much a “realist” as SkS is “sceptical”

              20

            • #
              Andrew

              Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

              The leftoids think “Howard years” is an insult! So question – if we’re like the Howard years but without a boom, why is that? Commodity prices, the terms of trade etc are higher than the HIGHEST point ever reached in the Howard years (a 1 month spike in Nov 2006). They have been higher than the all-time Howard record for all but 7 months of the Rudd-Gillard-Brown-Rudd govt.

              So why DON’T we have a boom now? Is it
              - mining tax
              - carbon tax
              - “Fair Work” Act
              - green tape
              - govt spending / crowding out
              - tax increases
              - the distraction of 50000 boatee parasites to look after?

              Which of the above best explains the lack of a boom?

              Which explains why our unemployment is rising when 90% of the world’s population is experiencing falling unemployment? (The other 10% being Europe, where the warmies are in charge of the asylum and blew up their economy on “green” rubbish like converting their coal generation to burn trees.)

              10

  • #

    [...] creations featured remain the intellectual property of Michael E. Mann. All reproductions by NASA, NOAA, GISS, USHCN, IPCC have been permitted under exclusive licensing arrangement through the [...]

    10

  • #
    robert

    first up,great blog made even better by the quality of knowledge of most contributors.
    i would like to add some personal observations to the debate.

    the michaels of this world (it always seems to be a michael !) have a hard time understanding any dissent towards the cAGW hypothesis simply because the majority of them have never had to apply theoretical science in the real world.they are pure academics,the old saying those that can,do,and those that cant teach (or climate model) seems appropriate.
    as is emphasized on this blog,the real practitioners of applied science in the field have no problem disputing any so called “consensus”,it is how innovation occurs in a practical way.
    this is not the norm for academics,especially the fresh faced lot of newcomers in the last two decades that are establishing careers,in fact professional existence off the back of cAGW.

    unfortunately as time goes on,it looks increasingly likely that the funding to keep all these fresh young faces in a job will be far less in the near future.

    another downside for the pro cAGW scientists is the possible backlash from ordinary citizens that believed the hype in the early days,and did nothing to stop their governments squandering billions of dollars on a non issue.personally i would be quite happy to show people just reallyhow unhappy i am that people are still trying promote this garbage as either science or fact.
    the real downside of it all is even more concerning.without a doubt there are things being done to the planet that are not sensible in the longterm.just how much credence will the scientists that have genuine observational fact based data supporting them get ?
    unfortunately for the science community in general,the general public,myself included, wont separate the faux climate scientists from the true exponents of the hard sciences.
    does the science community as a whole realise the damage being done to its credibility in the eyes of the public as a result of climate pseudo science ?
    [Individual name removed - it was not required to emphasise what is already a good point -Fly]

    30

  • #
    Delory

    I guess this is the beginning of the post-modern version of ‘science’….

    10

  • #