AGW Denial, The Greatest Scam in History?

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
55
Oshawa
Climategate Is Dead! Or Long Live Climategate?

An exhaustive six-month independent review into the Climategate emails has concluded that the “rigor and honesty” of the climate scientists caught up in the non-scandal are “not in doubt.” [PDF]

The investigation, led by Sir Muir Russell, found no grand conspiracy among scientists brainwashed by the U.N. IPCC and Al Gore to dominate the planet by dreaming up man-made global warming, as the right wing media and blogosphere insisted in the wake of the Climategate nontroversy that followed the theft of emails and documents from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) late last year.

The report confirms again that climate scientists’ findings remain sound. Some of its key findings:

“On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.

In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of advice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments. ” (pg. 11)


While this 160-page independent report should settle once and for all any lingering suspicion about the actions of the handful of scientists most frequently cited in the emails, it is unlikely to appease the conspiracy theorists who fear the U.N. is going to steal their liberties and zombify their babies under a New World Order.

As with birthers and truthers and others who cling to extreme conspiracy theories in the face of overwhelming evidence, once people are lured by the fear-induced frame suggesting that dark forces are at work to control them, they apparently can’t tell reality from fiction. Even when handed a giant stack of scientific studies documenting what is known about climate change, some still deny the blatantly obvious conclusion that the world is warming, humans are driving that disruption, and we had better get cracking to confront this challenge.

The Russell report did confirm earlier criticisms that the handful of scientists targeted by the Climategate attacks failed to display "the proper degree of openness" when dealing with public requests for information.

Fair enough, that criticism has been previously acknowledged as valid, and efforts are already underway to ensure increased transparency at CRU and other scientific institutions. The call for greater transparency and openness among scientists and their institutions is necessary and welcomed, but certainly they aren’t the only ones who deserve that reminder.

What institution on the planet would pass muster under such intense scrutiny? Certainly not the U.S. government agencies, which often deny or impede FOIA requests, or global corporations like BP, Massey Energy and Koch Industries, which seem to revel in hiding information from the public all the time. More transparency is needed everywhere, not just among scientists in lab coats. But they get the message loud and clear.

Professor Phil Jones, who stepped down as CRU’s director during the investigation, will finally get back to work, having accepted a new title of Director of Research. Climate scientists at institutions around the world can continue to expand upon our understanding of global warming, with greater openness and interaction with the public than ever before.

The overwhelming body of evidence and data underpinning our understanding of climate science remains intact, confirmed, and freshly exonerated yet again.
The only real question left unanswered is who was behind the actual crime - the theft of the emails, as Joe Romm writes at ClimateProgress:

"I would call this a CSI-type review, because of its incredible forensic thoroughness, except that it didn’t look at the actual crime — the hacked emails — only the charges against climate scientists. The investigation found there was no fire, only smoke. Yes, the report found “that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA” — and they made many useful suggestions to improve that important failing.
But they found no evidence of any wrongdoing that undermines climate science. And that is what this is all about — the science — not the scientists, no matter how much the anti-science crowd tries to change the subject."

But will this thorough debunking of the main allegations made by the Climategate conspiracy bloggers and their fans at FOX News suffice to end the attacks on climate scientists? Will it deflate Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's witch hunt of climate scientist Michael Mann? Will it be the “final nail in the coffin” of climate denial?

Not a chance. Climate deniers like Cuccinelli have no respect for science. They are only interested in ensuring further political dithering while the planet burns. Expect them to label it another whitewash, as usual, and continue their antics to distract the world from taking much-needed action.

But the U.S. Congress and international negotiators must now accept that the science of climate change is completely sound, and use it to craft policies to protect future generations from the ravages of climate change. They no longer have any semblance of an excuse to delay. The world's engineers, physicists and entrepreneurs can work together to find solutions to global energy challenges and build resilience to cope with the damage already done to climate systems. But only with international cooperation can real progress be made to safeguard future generations.


Read the entire final report of the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review [PDF attached].
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
I assume that the "mystery" has to do with my not providing you with references. There's no mystery here, it's part of your M.O. in attacking the reference(s) rather than dealing with the actual issue..
You do enough of that yourself. :)
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
55
Oshawa
A Lesson in Graphing and Trend Fitting from WTFUWT

http://friendsofginandtonic.org/files/category-wos.html
Steven Goddard, as loyal readers of this blog will already know, has transformed Venusian atmospheric physics with his egregious (that word as used here means standing out from the flock not the derogatory unusually crappy) thinking on adiabatic heating, thereby rubbishing the greenhouse effect theory in our solar system.

Mr Goddard has now turned his penetrating insight onto that favourite bête blanche of the alarmists, the supposedly shrinking Arctic sea ice. Goddard performs some simple time series analysis on the JAXA data, disentangling all that confusing varicoloured spaghetti and shows how the long term trend is revealed by a linear fit. Thus:



(Gentle readers of the FoGT blog may be confused by the last sentence in Goddard’s caption where he uses the rhetorical device of irony, whereby the literal meaning of his words is the opposite of what he really means to say.) Some critics immediately jumped on Goddard’s results and claimed that the California-sized increase in sea ice was an artifact of Goddard’s analysis and that everything depends on where you pick the starting point. I suppose that, taking this idea to an extreme, means that the JAXA data could even show “more proof that the Arctic is melting down”, which would be doubly ironic when you think about it.

FoGT scientists have done their own analysis using a model data set known to us mathematicians as the “sine” function.



This graph is remarkably similar to Goddard’s graph (if you ignore the “noise” with the unusually low minima in recent years) and shows the same increasing linear trend discovered by him. The lesson here is that when you analyze cyclic data like climate, you have to take care to do your analysis over many cycles and to pick your start and end points carefully. For example, using a time series shifted by half a cycle (that’s six months for you astronomical buffs) you get the following graph, which would produce the patently absurd result that Arctic ice is actually shrinking. Tell that to the Navy!



As Steven Goddard so succinctly--if ungrammatically--put it:
Linear trends through cyclical data forms the entire basis of the IPCC’s raison d’être.

Apart from those non-linear hockey sticks, of course.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
I assume that the "mystery" has to do with my not providing you with references. There's no mystery here, it's part of your M.O. in attacking the reference(s) rather than dealing with the actual issue.

Ahh, so you're just protecting your assertion from criticism.

Must be nice.

You can make whatever assertion you want, and nobody can actually address the claim.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,217
14,250
113
Low Earth Orbit
Scientists Use Sunlight to Make Fuel From CO2

Researchers at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico have found a way of using sunlight to recycle carbon dioxide and produce fuels like methanol or gasoline.
The Sunlight to Petrol, or S2P, project essentially reverses the combustion process, recovering the building blocks of hydrocarbons. They can then be used to synthesize liquid fuels like methanol or gasoline. Researchers said the technology already works and could help reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, although large-scale implementation could be a decade or more away.
"This is about closing the cycle," said Ellen Stechel, manager of Sandia's Fuels and Energy Transitions department. "Right now our fossil fuels are emitting CO2. This would help us manage and reduce our emissions and put us on the path to a carbon-neutral energy system."
The idea of recycling carbon dioxide is not new, but has generally been considered too difficult and expensive to be worth the effort. But with oil prices exceeding $100 per barrel and concerns about global warming mounting, researchers are increasingly motivated to investigate carbon recycling. Los Alamos Renewable Energy, for example, has developed a method of using CO2 to generate electricity and fuel.
S2P uses a solar reactor called the Counter-Rotating Ring Receiver Reactor Recuperator, or CR5, to divide carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide and oxygen.
"It's a heat engine," Stechel said. "But instead of doing mechanical work, it does chemical work."
Lab experiments have shown that the process works, Stechel said. The researchers hope to finish a prototype by April.


Read More http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/01/S2P#ixzz0t8v8rMkn




 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
55
Oshawa
Monckton exposes his rebuttal: So much blather; so little substance

The motor-mouth Monckton - which is to say, Christopher Walter, the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley - has authored a 48,000-word Response to John Abraham (attached). It is a breathless and libelous screed that can lead to only one certain conclusion: the good Lord doesn't have a leg to stand on.
For those catching up, John Abraham is a professor at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota, who some months ago released a detailed critique of an earlier Monckton presentation. Abraham found Monckton's work sadly lacking. Monckton misquoted or mislabelled sources; he promoted positions that were unsupported in his material; he bobbled his math; he manipulated or inadvertently misrepresented graphical information and he arrived at conclusions that were, in Abraham's own generally careful words, "absurd."
Monckton is outraged (which appears to be a permanent condition - either outraged or outrageous). In a response that goes on for 99 tiresome pages, he calls Abraham a liar, and accuses him of bad faith, malice and academic dishonesty. The Viscount then insists that Abraham and his unversity atone for their sins by paying $110,000 in "damages" to a charity of Monckton's own choosing. This is couched as some kind of libel action in the court of public opinion - the only court where Monckton dare step: he'd be laughed out of town (and found libel for costs) if he tried any of this nonsense before even the most sympathetic judge.

Monckton's entire response is both too silly and too incredibly long to be picked apart piece by piece: that would take months. But here are a couple of representative outbursts. In a foreword, "signed" by the Science and Public Policy Institute (the SPPInstitute) Monckton (clearly the author; he screws up his first-person, third-person pronouns) says:
Abraham falsely stated that “Remember, Chris Monckton’s never published a paper in anything”
(37), when he knew or negligently and recklessly failed to check that – to take two examples –
Lord Monckton had published papers on the determination of climate sensitivity in the UK’s
Quarterly Economic Bulletin and in the American Physical Society’s reviewed newsletter, Physics
and Society ...
In context, Abraham's reference - an accurate one - held that Monckton has never published anything in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Monckton's riposte cites a bulletin in a Welsh business school not a particularly impressive standard for scientific peer review. Monckton also points to feature that he wrote for an APS newsletter. The latter is also NOT a peer-reviewed journal and Monckton has been scolded by people, including the then-president of the American Physical Society, Arthur Biensenstock, for misrepresenting this fact.
So, per Abraham's criticism, Monckton says something, he offers a vague source to back up his position, but when you go to the source, you find that he has said something that is quite incorrect. If you didn't already know Monckton - which is to say, if you hadn't come to expect this performance - you might have thought that someone who was calling someone else a "liar" would take greater care with his own facts.
My favourite set of criticisms, though, revolve around Abraham's general statements that Monckton had urged his audience to believe "The world is not warming;" "The ice is not melting:" "The ocean isn't heating;" and "Sea levels aren't rising at all."
Monckton says this is "a lie" and to prove it, he points to some of the graphs that he used to illustrate these issues. These graphs appear on slides labelled "The 'it's getting worse' lie;" and " ...so sea level has not risen for four years;" and "Arctic summer sea ice area is just fine; it's recovering from a 30-year low in 2007."
I find this fascinating. Monckton uses these slides in his presentation to argue that climate change is nothing to worry about and that the world scientific community is peopled by a pack of liars. Yet, when he's crticised for this idiocy, he notices that the graphs and science in his OWN PRESENTATION demonstrate the exact opposite. He puts up an image showing a steady increase in sea level and he draws a big red line across the only four-year period in which the rise pauses - declaring global warming at an end. And then he accuses John Abraham of lying! Monckton says that "Arctic summer sea ice area is just fine ..." and then bids us in a later defence to concentrate on the part where he mentions 2007 as a low point unprecedented in the history of Arctic sea ice record-keeping. Say whatever else you want about the guy, you have to give Monckton credit for having cast iron cojones and no sense of shame whatsoever.
Here's the bottom line: Monckton is a risible hack who burries fact in a lather of language, and who cares for nothing so much as the promotion of his own dubious reputation. If you doubt it, take the 90 minutes to watch Monckton's rude, sophomoric and objectionable presentation and then take another 80 minutes to watch John Abraham's remarkably respectful response. Then, if you're really, really determined, check out Monckton's latest epistle.
After such an exercise, preferably followed by some strong drink and a good night sleep, I believe that most people will conclude that John Abraham is a careful scientist and that the Lord Monckton is a belligerent and unapologetic polemicist, pushing an ideological viewpoint that is - in a way that he has noticed himself - quite directly in opposition to the evidence at hand.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Taxes cure CO2..... it's a fact!

Mind blown.


Anyway, I thought I'd thrown another log into the fire here for you guys to pick apart:
--

Killing the green wave


Most people understand what an independent public inquiry is. Except climate scientists and politicians.

In a public inquiry, a third party with no interest in the outcome — typically a judge — is appointed by government with a mandate to investigate an issue of public concern.

The inquiry has its own legal counsel, investigators and budget. It has the power to compel witnesses to testify publicly, to cross-examine them, to demand documents and call in outside experts. By that standard, the three official “inquiries” into “Climategate” — the last of which recently “exonerated” scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) — again were farces.

Two were cases of the UEA appointing sympathetic academics to investigate itself.
The third was a one-day hearing before a British parliamentary committee in a country that has been at the forefront of global warming hysteria. Climategate involved the unsanctioned release of thousands of e-mails and documents by leading climate scientists.

The most infamous came from former CRU director Phil Jones about using a “trick” to “hide the decline” in temperatures, plus discussing with colleagues ways to hide data from freedom of information requests under U.K. law.

The latest “inquiry” found what the two previous ones did — the science of climate change is sound (surprise!), but researchers were unprofessionally secretive. While warmists declared “victory” with each predictable report, and are still fighting skeptics over the credibility of various claims in the 2007 report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which basically described global warming as an existential threat, much of the public has stopped listening.

International polls show concern over climate change dropping — even in countries such as Germany, which has heavily invested in renewable energy — and most significantly in the U.S., the world’s No. 2 greenhouse gas emitter.
With China, the world’s largest emitter, refusing to accept hard emission targets, global negotiations to draft a successor agreement to the (widely ignored) Kyoto accord, which expires in 2012, are stalled.

There’ll be another attempt in Cancun this November after talks all but fell apart in Copenhagen last December, but the effort is losing steam.

One reason is the realization global, centrally-imposed diktats to cut emissions over mandated time frames — mindful of the former Soviet Union’s absurd five-year plans for the production of tin — don’t work. Another is politicians now have to move from promising to lower emissions, which is easy, to lowering them, which, as the public is discovering, is ruinously expensive, doesn’t work and will lead to power shortages.

Optimists might say, as Newsweek did Monday in an essay, “A Green Retreat: Why the environment is no longer a surefire political winner,” that climate change is finally being put into perspective as one of many challenges we face, not necessarily the most significant. Unfortunately, the global political fight never has been about the environment, but about expanding government power domestically and creating, internationally, a socialist, money-sucking scheme to transfer wealth from the first world to the third. That effort is proceeding.

It’s how Stephen Harper accurately described Kyoto, before he became prime minister and stopped talking about the issue honestly. As for the opposition parties, they’re so uninformed about the devastating economic consequences of what they’re advocating, it’s just scary.

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2010/07/13/14700811.html
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
"Unfortunately, the global political fight never has been about the environment, but about expanding government power domestically and creating, internationally, a socialist, money-sucking scheme to transfer wealth from the first world to the third. That effort is proceeding."

Why worry about facts and even twisting emails out of context when you can just invent a conspiracy, with not a shred of evidence at all.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,217
14,250
113
Low Earth Orbit
Taxes won't do jack **** to what is happening to the planet and neither can man.

The only thing we can do and need to do is take far better care of the water or our species is toast no matter what is causing the changes in climate patterns.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Taxes won't do jack **** to what is happening to the planet and neither can man.

The only thing we can do and need to do is take far better care of the water or our species is toast no matter what is causing the changes in climate patterns.

Some other obvious and not so obvious things you can do:

Fly less, turn down heating/air con, always turn stuff off, drive less, buy only high quality products that are built to last, try to buy just the right amount of food to avoid waste, only take showers instead of baths, etc..
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
55
Oshawa
Taxes won't do jack **** to what is happening to the planet and neither can man.

The only thing we can do and need to do is take far better care of the water or our species is toast no matter what is causing the changes in climate patterns.

Wow, that's new.

I've haven't seen anyone move the goal posts that far yet.:lol:

Mind blown.


Anyway, I thought I'd thrown another log into the fire here for you guys to pick apart:
--

Killing the green wave


Most people understand what an independent public inquiry is. Except climate scientists and politicians.

In a public inquiry, a third party with no interest in the outcome — typically a judge — is appointed by government with a mandate to investigate an issue of public concern.

The inquiry has its own legal counsel, investigators and budget. It has the power to compel witnesses to testify publicly, to cross-examine them, to demand documents and call in outside experts. By that standard, the three official “inquiries” into “Climategate” — the last of which recently “exonerated” scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) — again were farces.

Two were cases of the UEA appointing sympathetic academics to investigate itself.
The third was a one-day hearing before a British parliamentary committee in a country that has been at the forefront of global warming hysteria. Climategate involved the unsanctioned release of thousands of e-mails and documents by leading climate scientists.

The most infamous came from former CRU director Phil Jones about using a “trick” to “hide the decline” in temperatures, plus discussing with colleagues ways to hide data from freedom of information requests under U.K. law.

The latest “inquiry” found what the two previous ones did — the science of climate change is sound (surprise!), but researchers were unprofessionally secretive. While warmists declared “victory” with each predictable report, and are still fighting skeptics over the credibility of various claims in the 2007 report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which basically described global warming as an existential threat, much of the public has stopped listening.

International polls show concern over climate change dropping — even in countries such as Germany, which has heavily invested in renewable energy — and most significantly in the U.S., the world’s No. 2 greenhouse gas emitter.
With China, the world’s largest emitter, refusing to accept hard emission targets, global negotiations to draft a successor agreement to the (widely ignored) Kyoto accord, which expires in 2012, are stalled.

There’ll be another attempt in Cancun this November after talks all but fell apart in Copenhagen last December, but the effort is losing steam.

One reason is the realization global, centrally-imposed diktats to cut emissions over mandated time frames — mindful of the former Soviet Union’s absurd five-year plans for the production of tin — don’t work. Another is politicians now have to move from promising to lower emissions, which is easy, to lowering them, which, as the public is discovering, is ruinously expensive, doesn’t work and will lead to power shortages.

Optimists might say, as Newsweek did Monday in an essay, “A Green Retreat: Why the environment is no longer a surefire political winner,” that climate change is finally being put into perspective as one of many challenges we face, not necessarily the most significant. Unfortunately, the global political fight never has been about the environment, but about expanding government power domestically and creating, internationally, a socialist, money-sucking scheme to transfer wealth from the first world to the third. That effort is proceeding.

It’s how Stephen Harper accurately described Kyoto, before he became prime minister and stopped talking about the issue honestly. As for the opposition parties, they’re so uninformed about the devastating economic consequences of what they’re advocating, it’s just scary.

Killing the green wave | Lorrie Goldstein | Columnists | Comment | Toronto Sun

Ah yes Lorrie Goldstien, the guy who does a great job of muddying up the issue with politics.

He's no better than the politicians.

I had an email discussion with this guy, he took his ball and went home after two exchanges....what a joke.:roll:
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Taxes won't do jack **** to what is happening to the planet and neither can man.

The only thing we can do and need to do is take far better care of the water or our species is toast no matter what is causing the changes in climate patterns.

Well there's some middle ground where I agree with you. But I can swing that back to carbon dioxide too. The carbonate compensation depth is affected by the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. When the bio-available aragonite (the form of calcium utilized by most calcifiers) lags behind the rate of dissolution, you lose shell building creatures in the ocean. If you kill the bottom dwellers then you also kill the closing loop for the nutrient cycle in the ocean. When those nutrients build up, they cause problems, just like the dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico.