'Ederer reports not long ago retired geologist and data computation expert Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert began looking at the data behind the global warming claims, and especially the datasets of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS).

Ewert painstakingly examined and tabulated the reams of archived data from 1153 stations that go back to 1881 – which NASA has publicly available – data that the UN IPCC uses to base its conclusion that man is heating the Earth’s atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels. According to Ederer, what Professor Ewert found is “unbelievable”:

    From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.”

' The 6 most often used methods were:

• Reducing the annual mean in the early phase.
• Reducing the high values in the first warming phase.
• Increasing individual values during the second warming phase.
• Suppression of the second cooling phase starting in 1995.
• Shortening the early decades of the datasets.
• With the long-term datasets, even the first century was shortened.

The methods were employed for stations such as Darwin, Australia and Palma de Mallorca, for example, where cooling trends were suddenly transformed into warming.'

- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/german-professor-examines-nasa-giss-temperature-datasets-finds-they-have-been-massively-altered/#sthash.aldIVMJQ.LJWOdLPH.dpuf
Available in the original German here-

http://www.achgut.com/dadgdx/index.php/dadgd/article/sind_die_klimadaten_manipuliert#When:15:45:00Z

No surprises there I guess. The "There is NO GLOBAL warming" denialists will be out in force.

Th latest trick of the global warming deniers is to try and discredit the scientific data. This is despite the fact that most of the homogenized data has actually resulted in the raw temperatures being reduced.

What can't be disputed however  is the retreat of glaciers since 1850

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850

No matter how much the conservative press like to cherry pick data and argue semantics, photo graphic evidence of glacial retreat is unambiguous evidence that the earth is warming

---

another retreating glacier

---

Notice the picture above were taken before the new Ice Age started in 2014?


forgiven

namaste

What Ice Age? 2015 is the hottest year on record.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 10:53am:

What Ice Age? 2015 is the hottest year on record.

You didn't see my thread on the mini Ice Age with over
250 videos of supporting evidence including graphs & links
to science papers?

forgiven

namaste

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 10:17am:

Th latest trick of the global warming deniers is to try and discredit the scientific data. This is despite the fact that most of the homogenized data has actually resulted in the raw temperatures being reduced. What can't be disputed however  is the retreat of glaciers since 1850 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850 No matter how much the conservative press like to cherry pick data and argue semantics, photo graphic evidence of glacial retreat is unambiguous evidence that the earth is warming

Yes, the science says some glaciers are shrinking, some are growing and some are static.

'The UN's climate science body has admitted that a claim made in its 2007 report - that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035 - was unfounded.

The admission today followed a New Scientist article last week that revealed the source of the claim made in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was not peer-reviewed scientific literature – but a media interview with a scientist conducted in 1999. Several senior scientists have now said the claim was unrealistic and that the large Himalayan glaciers could not melt in a few decades.'

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake

But I thought the IPCC only used peer reviewed science.

'Top Indian physicists have concluded Himalayan glaciers show little sign of retreat – in one of the largest studies of its type ever carried out.

I. M. Bahuguna et al, publishing in Current Science [PDF, issue index], studied changes to 2,000 glaciers in various Himalayan regions between 2001 to 2011. They conclude that 1,700 were stable, showing the same surface area and no change of direction.

248 glaciers exhibited a retreat, and 18 an advance. The scientists estimate a net loss of glacier area of about 10,000 km2 – that's a 0.2 per cent decrease (+/- 2.5pc), and an average retreat of 2.1 metres annually.'

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/13/indian_boffins_himalayan_glaciers_are_not_melting_ipcc_alarmist_global_warming/

the referred paper -
http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/106/07/1008.pdf

lee wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 11:23am:

248 glaciers exhibited a retreat, and 18 an advance. The scientists estimate a net loss of glacier area of about 10,000 km2 – that's a 0.2 per cent decrease (+/- 2.5pc), and an average retreat of 2.1 metres annually.'

So you are now quoting data that contradicts your OP and supports the fact that the earth is warming with more than 90% of glaciers retreating.

lee wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 11:23am:

Yes, the science says some glaciers are shrinking, some are growing and some are static.

Well that's pretty disingenuous:


Quote:

(0.9%) of them exhibited advancement of snout.

;D ;D

I'm more curious as to why you think there would be any substantial difference in glaciers between 2001 and 2011, when surface temperatures have remained fairly stable during that time period?

wiseguy wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 2:19pm:

No surprises there I guess. The "There is NO GLOBAL warming" denialists will be out in force.

And they will be correct in their assertions that the cool the past and warm the present fraud is well and truly happening.

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 10:17am:

Th latest trick of the global warming deniers is to try and discredit the scientific data. This is despite the fact that most of the homogenized data has actually resulted in the raw temperatures being reduced. What can't be disputed however  is the retreat of glaciers since 1850 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850 No matter how much the conservative press like to cherry pick data and argue semantics, photo graphic evidence of glacial retreat is unambiguous evidence that the earth is warming

Climate shifts. Always has always will. In fact in line with that, is that there are losses in parts and gains in other parts of ice extent and of ice gain.

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 12:32pm:

Climate shifts. Always has always will. In fact in line with that, is that there are losses in parts and gains in other parts of ice extent and of ice gain.

Yes it's all a nice even balance, despite the fact that Lee's own dataset (which is from a very small time frame) shows that less than a percent of glaciers are growing.

Bobby. wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 10:56am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 6th, 2015 at 10:53am: What Ice Age? 2015 is the hottest year on record. You didn't see my thread on the mini Ice Age with over 250 videos of supporting evidence including graphs & links to science papers? forgiven namaste

I had a laugh at the crap you put up so solemnly. None of it counts, cherry picked data, no science.

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 11:47am:

lee wrote on Dec 6th, 2015 at 11:23am: 248 glaciers exhibited a retreat, and 18 an advance. The scientists estimate a net loss of glacier area of about 10,000 km2 – that's a 0.2 per cent decrease (+/- 2.5pc), and an average retreat of 2.1 metres annually.' So you are now quoting data that contradicts your OP and supports the fact that the earth is warming with more than 90% of glaciers retreating.

lee wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 11:23am:

They conclude that 1,700 were stable, showing the same surface area and no change of direction.

Did you miss this bit?

Stratos wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 11:53am:

lee wrote on Dec 6th, 2015 at 11:23am: Yes, the science says some glaciers are shrinking, some are growing and some are static. Well that's pretty disingenuous: Quote: (0.9%) of them exhibited advancement of snout. ;D ;D I'm more curious as to why you think there would be any substantial difference in glaciers between 2001 and 2011, when surface temperatures have remained fairly stable during that time period?

But the meme is CAGW.

So 1700 were stable. 248 retreated and 18 advanced, AGW is so scary.

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 12:32pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 6th, 2015 at 10:17am: Th latest trick of the global warming deniers is to try and discredit the scientific data. This is despite the fact that most of the homogenized data has actually resulted in the raw temperatures being reduced. What can't be disputed however  is the retreat of glaciers since 1850 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850 No matter how much the conservative press like to cherry pick data and argue semantics, photo graphic evidence of glacial retreat is unambiguous evidence that the earth is warming Climate shifts. Always has always will. In fact in line with that, is that there are losses in parts and gains in other parts of ice extent and of ice gain.

rates of change made your world buddy: get over it  :D :D :D :D :D

Bobby. wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 10:56am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 6th, 2015 at 10:53am: What Ice Age? 2015 is the hottest year on record. You didn't see my thread on the mini Ice Age with over 250 videos of supporting evidence including graphs & links to science papers? forgiven namaste

You mean the thread that you admit includes fraudulence  :o :o :o :o :o

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 10:17am:

Th latest trick of the global warming deniers is to try and discredit the scientific data. This is despite the fact that most of the homogenized data has actually resulted in the raw temperatures being reduced. What can't be disputed however  is the retreat of glaciers since 1850 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850 No matter how much the conservative press like to cherry pick data and argue semantics, photo graphic evidence of glacial retreat is unambiguous evidence that the earth is warming

This is the key to divestment: visual proof because we are visual creatures.

The money making movers and shakers don't need proof for them: they need proof for their customers! The money makers have legal obligations to look after the shareholders... not the stakeholders!

;)

It's a mixed markets problem: regulation of what a money-making entity is and the degree to which- if any  ::) - it has a legally enforceable social contract

lee wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 11:23am:

Yes, the science says some glaciers are shrinking, some are growing and some are static.

That would have to be the most dishonest answer by Lee to date. The vast majority of the worlds glaciers are receding. The few that aren't are only advancing because of local anomalies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850

Even the Himalayas glaciers are retreating


Quote:

Amid controversy and debate over the precise impact of global warming on the Himalayas, glaciologists analysed a massive cache of data on the mountain range and have concluded that it lost 13 per cent of its glaciers in just four decades. “What we find is that Karakoram is the only stable range. The others are retreating at different rates.” The investigation also finds that the rate of glacial loss in the Himalayas has accelerated over the decades: from around 9 Gt/year in 1975-85 to 20 Gt/year in 2000-2010. Glaciers are retreating faster in Western Himalaya than in Sikkim, it adds. http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/himalayas-lost-13-per-cent-of-glaciers-in-forty-years/article5554156.ece

---

[quote]That would have to be the most dishonest answer by Lee to date. The vast majority of the worlds glaciers are receding. The few that aren't are only advancing because of local anomalies.],quote],/


lee wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 11:23am:

I. M. Bahuguna et al, publishing in Current Science [PDF, issue index], studied changes to 2,000 glaciers in various Himalayan regions between 2001 to 2011. They conclude that 1,700 were stable, showing the same surface area and no change of direction. 248 glaciers exhibited a retreat, and 18 an advance. The scientists estimate a net loss of glacier area of about 10,000 km2 – that's a 0.2 per cent decrease (+/- 2.5pc), and an average retreat of 2.1 metres annually.'

So let's recap -
in the Himalayas -
'1,700 were stable'
'248 glaciers exhibited a retreat'
'18 an advance'

So out of 1,966, 248 were in retreat.  12%

'Senior members of the UN's climate science body admit a claim that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035 was unfounded '

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake



And this was supposed to be peer-reviewed science; not an opinion piece.

So many advanced, retreated were stable.

What is the ice loss?

lee wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 10:39am:

So let's recap - in the Himalayas - '1,700 were stable' '248 glaciers exhibited a retreat' '18 an advance' So out of 1,966, 248 were in retreat.  12%

Thanks Lee for proving my point about how warming deniers cherry pick their data.

You have provided data from only the Himalaya and only over a 10 year period. Yet still the data shows that the Himalaya is losing ice and this is despite them choosing a 10 year period (2001 - 2011) when warming had briefly slowed.

This does nothing to debunk the fact that the vast majority of the worlds glaciers are retreating which is unambiguous proof that the world is warming.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 10:55am:

So many advanced, retreated were stable. What is the ice loss?

Good question. With great doubt on GRACE data, pick a number.

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 11:01am:

Thanks Lee for proving my point about how warming deniers cherry pick their data. You have provided data from only the Himalaya and only over a 10 year period. Yet still the data shows that the Himalaya is losing ice and this is despite them choosing a 10 year period (2001 - 2011) when warming had briefly slowed. This does nothing to debunk the fact that the vast majority of the worlds glaciers are retreating which is unambiguous proof that the world is warming.

Ok. Show me the data to show I'm wrong,

'Spatial Coverage:
     

Northern and Southern Hemispheres:
Southernmost Latitude: 71.66° S
Northernmost Latitude: 89.30° N
Westernmost Longitude: 179.92° W
Easternmost Longitude: 179.68° E'

'The entire contents of the WGI database are available on the NSIDC FTP site stored in a single comma separated value text file:

    CSV File: wgi_feb2012.csv (39.5 MB).'

https://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g01130_glacier_inventory/

Knock yourself out. Notice the missing data in the Arctic and Antarctic?

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 11:01am:

his is despite them choosing a 10 year period (2001 - 2011) when warming had briefly slowed.

Warming slowed. So a slower warming led to stability?

lee wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 11:12am:

Ok. Show me the data to show I'm wrong, 'Spatial Coverage:       Northern and Southern Hemispheres: Southernmost Latitude: 71.66° S Northernmost Latitude: 89.30° N Westernmost Longitude: 179.92° W Easternmost Longitude: 179.68° E' 'The entire contents of the WGI database are available on the NSIDC FTP site stored in a single comma separated value text file:     CSV File: wgi_feb2012.csv (39.5 MB).' https://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g01130_glacier_inventory/ Knock yourself out. Notice the missing data in the Arctic and Antarctic?

I have neither the time nor the inclination to do that. I'll leave that to scientists


Quote:

The world’s glaciers are in retreat. The great tongues of ice high in the Himalayas, the Andes, the Alps and the Rockies are going back uphill at ever greater speeds, according to new research. And this loss of ice is both accelerating and “historically unprecedented”, say scientists who report in the Journal of Glaciology. In the past year or so, researchers have identified rapid rises in meltwater and alarming cases of glacial retreat in Greenland, West Antarctica, the Canadian and Alaskan coastal mountains, in Europe and in the Himalayan massif. They have also watched glaciers pick up speed downhill. One satellite-based study, confirmed by on-the-ground measurements, of the Jakobshavn glacier in Greenland, confirms that the river of ice is now moving at the rate of 46 metres a day, 17 kilometres a year, which is twice the speed recorded in 2003, which in turn was twice as fast as measured in 1997. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/04/speed-glacier-retreat-worldwide-historically-unprecedented-climate-change

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 11:57am:

And this loss of ice is both accelerating and “historically unprecedented”, say scientists who report in the Journal of Glaciology.

This paper is available here-

'Historically unprecedented global glacier decline in the early 21st century'

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/2015/00000061/00000228/art00011?token=005f1ccf5b2e833d5727405847447b49766c5f4072427c2b415d5833757e6f3f2f2730673f582f6ba3a0c722e5f9699

So early 21st century. Where mine was cherry-picking yours was kosher?

'The dataset on glacier front variations ( ~ 42 000 since 1600) delivers clear evidence that centennial glacier retreat is a global phenomenon.'

HMM, How much of the now known world existed in 1600?

'Intermittent readvance periods at regional and decadal scale are normally restricted to a subsample of glaciers and have not come close to achieving
the maximum positions of the Little Ice Age (or Holocene).'

So global warming since the LIA and we haven't seen much in the way of glacier growth? Unbelievable.

'Glaciological and geodetic observations
( ~ 5200 (readings) since 1850) show that the rates of early 21st-century mass loss are without precedent on a global scale'

Yep, by 1850 we knew all of the world's glaciers. 5200/160 years = 32.5 readings / year.

'This was achieved by combining traditional observations with satellite altimetry and gravimetry as a way of filling regional gaps and obtaining global coverage (Gardner and others, 2013).'

Ahh, GRACE again.

'Approximately 47 000 observations from 2300 glaciers are available worldwide, some of them going back as far as the 16th century (Table 1).'

But there are over 2,000 glaciers in the Himalayas alone

and

'From the RGI, we can learn that there are 198,000 glaciers in the World'

http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/mapping-worlds-glaciers/.

Makes 2300 pale into comparison. At least I was explicit with the Himalayan claim.

http://courvo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/splitting-hairs-300x199.jpg

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 3:07pm:

http://courvo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/splitting-hairs-300x199.jpg

Not a fine enough blade to sculpt a hockey stick

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 12:59pm:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 6th, 2015 at 10:56am: Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 6th, 2015 at 10:53am: What Ice Age? 2015 is the hottest year on record. You didn't see my thread on the mini Ice Age with over 250 videos of supporting evidence including graphs & links to science papers? forgiven namaste I had a laugh at the crap you put up so solemnly. None of it counts, cherry picked data, no science.

You shoot the messenger - in this case many top scientists.

You employ the fallacy of Arumentum Ad Hominem.

lee wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 2:50pm:

This paper is available here- http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/igsoc/00221430/v61n228/s11.p...

That link doesn't work.

Stratos wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 4:32pm:

lee wrote on Dec 9th, 2015 at 2:50pm: This paper is available here- http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/igsoc/00221430/v61n228/s11.p... That link doesn't work.

Ok deleted it. Go to the other one and click on "Download".

lee wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 4:39pm:

Ok deleted it. Go to the other one and click on "Download".

Cheers.  Your first point.


lee wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 2:50pm:

So early 21st century. Where mine was cherry-picking yours was kosher?

Lee, the paper very clearly has data from before the 21st century.  I'm assuming you hadn't read past the abstract when you typed that or something

lee wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 2:50pm:

But there are over 2,000 glaciers in the Himalayas alone

The study clearly shows the distribution of glaciers that were analysed.  You hadn't read this at the time you posted previously before had you?

Stratos wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 4:58pm:

lee wrote Today at 2:50pm: So early 21st century. Where mine was cherry-picking yours was kosher? Lee, the paper very clearly has data from before the 21st century.  I'm assuming you hadn't read past the abstract when you typed that or something

Yes, from 1600 and from 1850.

lee wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 2:50pm:

'The dataset on glacier front variations ( ~ 42 000 since 1600) delivers clear evidence that centennial glacier retreat is a global phenomenon.' HMM, How much of the now known world existed in 1600?

Or 42,000 readings in 400 years = 105 avg/year spread across how many glaciers


lee wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 2:50pm:

'Glaciological and geodetic observations ( ~ 5200 (readings) since 1850) show that the rates of early 21st-century mass loss are without precedent on a global scale' Yep, by 1850 we knew all of the world's glaciers. 5200/160 years = 32.5 readings / year.

Yep, I'm sure I read the paper. Of course you could take it further. From 1850, some of the 2000 glaciers were sampled.

'Table 1. Information on glacier fluctuation datasets. The total number of observations is given together with the spatial and temporal
coverage of the four analysed datasets: front variations (FV) from direct observations (obs) and reconstructions (rec); mass balance (MB) from
glaciological (glac) and geodetic (geod) methods. For 590 glaciers with no area information available, the average glacier area of the
corresponding observation sample was used for estimating the total area covered.'

So for 590 glaciers with no data, over a quarter of the sample size, they inferred the total area covered.

Stratos wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 5:03pm:

lee wrote on Dec 9th, 2015 at 2:50pm: But there are over 2,000 glaciers in the Himalayas alone The study clearly shows the distribution of glaciers that were analysed.  You hadn't read this at the time you posted previously before had you?

Yes, But I was comparing 2,000 glaciers which apparently confirm AGW with 2,000 that don't seem to confirm AGW. Isn't that how science works?

Quote:

U.S. academics-for-hire agree not to disclose fossil fuel funding, in a sting with reporters posing as industry reps http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/12/08/exposed-academics-for-

http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/12/08/exposed-academics-for-hire/

But but but it is AGW scientists who get paid to falsify data, isn’t it?

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 10^th, 2015 at 4:16pm:

Quote: U.S. academics-for-hire agree not to disclose fossil fuel funding, in a sting with reporters posing as industry reps http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/12/08/exposed-academics-for- http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/12/08/exposed-academics-for-hire/ But but but it is AGW scientists who get paid to falsify data, isn’t it?

Yes. Now what was it Greenpeace actually did. They set up a "business consultancy" and sought his views. After toing and froing, all in email form, which can be accessed and verified by the authorities, -

'He confirmed that his official title is Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Emeritus. He also reinforced his earlier message indicating he could not be bought by stating, very clearly:

    “To be sure your client is not misled on my views, it is clear there are real pollutants associated with the combustion of fossil fuels, oxides of sulfur and nitrogen for most of them, fly ash and heavy metals for coal, volatile organics for gasoline, etc.  I fully support regulations for cost-effective control of these real pollutants.  But the Paris climate talks are based on the premise that CO2 itself is a pollutant. This is completely false. More CO2 will benefit the world. The only way to limit CO2 would be to stop using fossil fuels, which I think would be a profoundly immoral and irrational policy.” '

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/08/breaking-greenpeace-co-founder-reports-greenpeace-to-the-fbi-under-rico-and-wire-fraud-statutes/

He has also called in the FBI,

'Greenpeace, in furtherance of what is in effect its war against every species on the planet, has now turned to what, on the face of things, looks to me like outright breach of the RICO, wire-fraud, witness-tampering and obstruction-of-committee statutes. I have called in the FBI.'

same source

That certainly sounds like a man with something to hide.

Ah, Greenpiss.

Wattsupwiththat, the AGW version of the Daily Toilet.

I always thought the thesis that scientists were paid to “pretend” to believe in AGW was crap. It makes more sense and there is evidence for (Heartland, Koch etc) to be paid to pretend AGW isn’t happening, or to cast doubt on the science (just like Big Tobacco did, may they rot in Hell) etc.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 10^th, 2015 at 5:50pm:

Wattsupwiththat, the AGW version of the Daily Toilet. I always thought the thesis that scientists were paid to “pretend” to believe in AGW was crap. It makes more sense and there is evidence for (Heartland, Koch etc) to be paid to pretend AGW isn’t happening, or to cast doubt on the science (just like Big Tobacco did, may they rot in Hell) etc.

Ah, yes; back to shooting the messenger. Who do you think funds Greenpeace? Rockefeller (renewables, finance for renewables), Soros (all manner of renewables, oh and back into coal). Do you think they don't want or get quid quo pro?

Soros needs to push back onto evil oil for being anti -dirty coal.

Why don't you actually read the post, with the email inclusions, BEFORE forming an opinion?

lee wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 5:58pm:

Stratos wrote on Dec 9th, 2015 at 5:03pm: lee wrote on Dec 9th, 2015 at 2:50pm: But there are over 2,000 glaciers in the Himalayas alone The study clearly shows the distribution of glaciers that were analysed.  You hadn't read this at the time you posted previously before had you? Yes, But I was comparing 2,000 glaciers which apparently confirm AGW with 2,000 that don't seem to confirm AGW. Isn't that how science works?

Iff that's a fair comment then fair enough  8-) 8-)

lee wrote on Dec 10^th, 2015 at 5:28pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 10th, 2015 at 4:16pm: Quote: U.S. academics-for-hire agree not to disclose fossil fuel funding, in a sting with reporters posing as industry reps http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/12/08/exposed-academics-for- http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/12/08/exposed-academics-for-hire/ But but but it is AGW scientists who get paid to falsify data, isn’t it? Yes. Now what was it Greenpeace actually did. They set up a "business consultancy" and sought his views. After toing and froing, all in email form, which can be accessed and verified by the authorities, - 'He confirmed that his official title is Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Emeritus. He also reinforced his earlier message indicating he could not be bought by stating, very clearly:     “To be sure your client is not misled on my views, it is clear there are real pollutants associated with the combustion of fossil fuels, oxides of sulfur and nitrogen for most of them, fly ash and heavy metals for coal, volatile organics for gasoline, etc.  I fully support regulations for cost-effective control of these real pollutants.  But the Paris climate talks are based on the premise that CO2 itself is a pollutant. This is completely false. More CO2 will benefit the world. The only way to limit CO2 would be to stop using fossil fuels, which I think would be a profoundly immoral and irrational policy.” ' http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/08/breaking-greenpeace-co-founder-reports-greenpeace-to-the-fbi-under-rico-and-wire-fraud-statutes/ He has also called in the FBI, 'Greenpeace, in furtherance of what is in effect its war against every species on the planet, has now turned to what, on the face of things, looks to me like outright breach of the RICO, wire-fraud, witness-tampering and obstruction-of-committee statutes. I have called in the FBI.' same source That certainly sounds like a man with something to hide. Ah, Greenpiss.

AGW loons cant find a real story, so make one up and one that flies in the face of the open and obvious facts.

lee wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 5:58pm:

Stratos wrote on Dec 9th, 2015 at 5:03pm: lee wrote on Dec 9th, 2015 at 2:50pm: But there are over 2,000 glaciers in the Himalayas alone The study clearly shows the distribution of glaciers that were analysed.  You hadn't read this at the time you posted previously before had you? Yes, But I was comparing 2,000 glaciers which apparently confirm AGW with 2,000 that don't seem to confirm AGW. Isn't that how science works?

So, which 2000 were you comparing?  Linky or it's stinky.

I can smell something ...

lee wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 11:23am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 6th, 2015 at 10:17am: Th latest trick of the global warming deniers is to try and discredit the scientific data. This is despite the fact that most of the homogenized data has actually resulted in the raw temperatures being reduced. What can't be disputed however  is the retreat of glaciers since 1850 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850 No matter how much the conservative press like to cherry pick data and argue semantics, photo graphic evidence of glacial retreat is unambiguous evidence that the earth is warming Yes, the science says some glaciers are shrinking, some are growing and some are static. 'The UN's climate science body has admitted that a claim made in its 2007 report - that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035 - was unfounded. The admission today followed a New Scientist article last week that revealed the source of the claim made in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was not peer-reviewed scientific literature – but a media interview with a scientist conducted in 1999. Several senior scientists have now said the claim was unrealistic and that the large Himalayan glaciers could not melt in a few decades.' http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake But I thought the IPCC only used peer reviewed science. 'Top Indian physicists have concluded Himalayan glaciers show little sign of retreat – in one of the largest studies of its type ever carried out. I. M. Bahuguna et al, publishing in Current Science [PDF, issue index], studied changes to 2,000 glaciers in various Himalayan regions between 2001 to 2011. They conclude that 1,700 were stable, showing the same surface area and no change of direction. 248 glaciers exhibited a retreat, and 18 an advance. The scientists estimate a net loss of glacier area of about 10,000 km2 – that's a 0.2 per cent decrease (+/- 2.5pc), and an average retreat of 2.1 metres annually.' http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/13/indian_boffins_himalayan_glaciers_are_not_melting_ipcc_alarmist_global_warming/ the referred paper - http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/106/07/1008.pdf

As you can see it was already linky; leaves you stinky.

The paper is bogus.

The International Journal of Current Science is number 120 on the List of Predatory Publishers 2014

By Jeffrey Beall

Released January 2, 2014
"The gold (author pays) open-access model has given rise to a great many new online publishers. Many of these publishers are corrupt and exist only to make money off the author processing charges that are billed to authors upon acceptance of their scientific manuscripts."

They publish anything for the right money. That all you got?  No science at all?

random wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 7:16pm:

The paper is bogus. The International Journal of Current Science is number 120 on the List of Predatory Publishers 2014 By Jeffrey Beall Released January 2, 2014 "The gold (author pays) open-access model has given rise to a great many new online publishers. Many of these publishers are corrupt and exist only to make money off the author processing charges that are billed to authors upon acceptance of their scientific manuscripts." They publish anything for the right money. That all you got?  No science at all?

And Indians are generally so rich, especially scientists.

'Jeffrey Beall came to prominence because of Beall’s List, which set out to document the existence of what Beall termed “predatory publishers.”  Without addressing the question of whether Beall was right 100% of the time, I thought he was doing a good thing.  There are inherent structural problems with Gold Open Access and sooner or later unscrupulous people were going to exploit them.  Beall offered himself as the cop on the beat and helped to make ours a safer neighborhood.  Kudos to him.

Since I first became aware of Beall’s List, however, I have been following some of Beall’s work with growing unease.  Here and there some (to me) distasteful political ideology peeked through (with my pragmatic mindset, any kind of ideology makes me queasy), but you don’t have to agree with somebody all the time to agree with them some of the time.  But now, in a recent screed, he has crossed the line.  While I continue to admire Beall’s List, the broader critique (really an assault) of Gold OA and those who advocate it is too strong for me.  Sorry, Jeffrey, but I’m not with you on this.

So what is that Beall is expounding?  The following comes from the conclusion to his essay:

The open-access movement isn’t really about open access. Instead, it is about collectivizing production and denying the freedom of the press from those who prefer the subscription model of scholarly publishing.'

http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/12/16/parting-company-with-jeffrey-beall/

I guess you should choose your champions with care.

Also -

'Beall is not a recognized authority in evaluating scholarly Journals
Man with no credibility

Jeffrey Beall’s blog has no affiliation to any governing body or organization accredited to scholarly publishing. This is an important key element that needs to be considered when analyzing his blog. He is just a single individual writing a blog (full of nonsense) same as many others do over the internet. His blog is his personal opinion and has not been tested for its validity and as such has no authority whatsoever. Even so, Beall attempted to create a problem that does not exist. When we compare the number of open access journals around the world, Beall’s list is not significant at all. Despite that, Beall has maliciously discredited many Open access journals and demanded ransom in exchange for the removal of them from his hit list. This academic crime must end. We have added Jeffrey Beall to our list as a potential, possible, probable, predatory Blogger.'

http://www.scholarlyoa.net/

He is promoting Open Access.  The same topic that information activist Aaron Swartz was killed over.  Trying to allow us access to scientific papers without having to pay for them.

Your attack provides no information to discredit the author.

But I have lots on Predatory publishers criticised for 'unethical, unprincipled' tactics.  Including the one your precious paper was in.   ;)

ABC RN
Sunday 2 August 2015 8:05AM (view full episode)
"Predatory publishers are exploiting academics by getting them to pay fees—sometimes thousands of dollars—to publish their papers in low-grade journals, alongside anything from harmful junk science to flat out dangerous ideas.

One of the biggest players in the sector is OMICS. Based in India, the group say it publishes over 700 peer reviewed journals. But Background Briefing has discovered that half of them are defunct, and the rest are suffering a credibility problem."

random wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 7:40pm:

But I have lots on Predatory publishers criticised for 'unethical, unprincipled' tactics.  Including the one your precious paper was in.   Wink

in your own mind.


random wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 7:40pm:

The same topic that information activist Aaron Swartz was killed over

Which one did it?

You did see the part where they said 
lee wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 7:29pm:

Beall is not a recognized authority in evaluating scholarly Journals

?

So he is not a recognized authority - but I must defer to him? An appeal to no authority?

I prefer his findings to yours.  At least I know who he is.

random wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 7:55pm:

At least I know who he is.

Yep, he's a librarian.

And Hagar Cohen is an Australian investigative journalist working for the Australian Broadcasting Commission.  They confirmed the claims.

That journal, and all those in the same Indian owner, are bogus.  I would link if I was allowed to.

Suck it up, have a cry in the stairwell.  That's how it is.

'Hagar Cohen joined the ABC in 2007. She has worked on RN's Life Matters, Breakfast, The Religion Report and Saturday Extra as well as NewsRadio and been a reporter for AM, PM and The World Today. Hagar was highly commended by the Walkley Foundation for her Background Briefing on cage fighting Blood, sweat and tears in the cage; for Online Astroturfing in 2013; and “The secret life of Monica Chetty” in 2014 '

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/about/

Sounds like a real heavy hitter.

Much heavier than Wattsfcukedup.  Or you even.   ;D

random wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 8:14pm:

Much heavier than Wattsfcukedup.

Sorry, you have me confused. Who is Wattsfcukedup.?

Wattsupwiththat is part of the Denial Industry.  You are either not very well read on the subject or ... just playing dumb.

random wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 8:26pm:

Wattsupwiththat is part of the Denial Industry.

Oh, who pays for them?

Watt happened to your last secretary?

random wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 8:38pm:

Watt happened to your last secretary?

So you've got nothing? ;)

Oh alrighty then ...  here's a list of paid deniers, Watts is on it.  I refer to this often.  If I could post links and images I would post a diagram of the relationship between Exxon and Watts.  Can't even post a link right now so you will have to wait.

A
Alexandre Aguiar
​Arun Ahluwalia
Syun-Ichi Akasofu
Ralph B. Alexander
William JR Alexander
Claude Allègre
Helmut Alt
Gabriel Calzada Alvarez
Klaus F. Angerer
Bob Armstrong
Scott Armstrong
Jerome Arnett
August Auer
Dennis Avery

B
Ronald Bailey
Sallie Baliunas
Timothy F. Ball (Tim Ball)
Robert C. Balling Jr.
Jack Barrett
Joseph Bast
Joe Bastardi
Charles Battig
Calvin Beisner
Larry Bell
David Bellamy
Roger Bezdek
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
Andrew Bolt
Christopher Booker
Donald J. Boudreaux
Alexandra Liddy Bourne
Robert L. Bradley Jr.
Jan Breslow
Barry Brill
Robert Bryce
Reid Bryson
H. Sterling Burnett

C
Nigel Calder
Alan Carlin
Bob Carter
John Charles
Paul Chesser
John R. Christy
Petr Chylek
Ian Clark
Frank Clemente
Roger Cohen
John Coleman
Patrick (Jeff) Condon
Joseph Conklin
Russell Cook
Paul Copper
Roy Cordato
Vincent Courtillot
Richard S. Courtney
Walter Cunningham
Judith Curry

D
Joseph D'Aleo
Rupert Darwall
Edward David
Robert E. Davis
Donn Dears
Anne Debeil
James Delingpole
David Deming
Peter Dietze
Paul Driessen
Harold Doiron
David Douglass
John Droz
Reynald Du Berger
Geoffrey Duffy
John Dale Dunn
Freeman Dyson

E
Don Easterbrook
Gregg Easterbrook
Myron Ebell
Gunter Ederer
Nathalie Elgrably-Lévy
Gary England
Hugh W. Ellsaesser
Alex Epstein
Marcus D. Ernst
Willis Eschenbach
Robert H. Essenhigh
Christopher Essex
David Evans
Ray Evans
Bruce Everett
Friedrich-Karl Ewert

F
Peter Ferrara
Walter Fett
Richard Fink
Joe Fone
Viv Forbes
Bob Foster
Michael Fox
Stewart Franks
Chris de Freitas
Samuele Furfari

G
Dan Gainor
Evelyn Browning-Garriss
Lee C. Gerhard
Gerhard Gerlich
Ivar Giaever
Steven Goddard
Michael H. Goetz
Indur M. Goklany
Fred Goldberg
Stanley Goldenberg
Steve Goreham
Laurence Gould
Vincent Gray
William Gray
Kenneth Green
Kesten Green

H
Ken Haapala
William Happer
Keith D. Hage
Tom Harris
Howard Hayden
Steven F. Hayward
Roger Helmer
David Henderson
Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera
John Hinderaker
Gertrud Höhler
Art Horn
Chris Horner
Douglas V. Hoyt
Arthur Middleton Hughes

I
Craig Idso
Sherwood B. Idso
Keith Idso
James Inhofe
Niger Innis
Roy Innis
Kiminori Itoh

J
Albert F. Jacobs
Zbigniew Jaworowski
Claes Goran Johnson

K
Wibjorn Karlen
William Kay
Richard Keen
Don Keiller
Michael Kelly
Madhav Khandekar
William Kininmonth
Vaclav Klaus
Chip Knappenberger
Gerrit Cornelis van Kooten
George Kukla

L
Hans HJ Labohm
Donna Laframboise
Chris Landsea
Nigel Lawson
Douglas Leahey
David Legates
Jay H. Lehr
Ezra Levant
Dan Lewis
Michael Limburg
Richard Lindzen
Gerrit van der Lingen
John Loeffler
Craig Loehle
Bjørn Lomborg
Leon Louw
Horst-Joachim Lüdecke
Sebastian Lüning
Anthony Lupo

M
Augusto Mangini
Henri Masson
Alister McFarquhar
James McGrath
Steve McIntyre
Ross McKitrick
Owen McShane
Robert Mendelsohn
Patrick Michaels
Fred Michel
Steve Milloy
Nick Minchin
Asmunn Moene
A. Alan Moghissi
Christopher Monckton
Andrew Montford
Patrick Moore
Marc Morano
Nils-Axel Morner
Julian Morris
Wolfgang Müller
Robert P. Murphy
Tad Murty
Todd Myers

N
Maurice Newman
Rodney Nichols
Jacob Nordangård
Bo Nordell
John Nothdurft
Joanne Nova

O
Oregon Petition
John O'Sullivan
Cliff Ollier

P
David H. Padden
Lewis Page
R. Timothy Patterson
Gernot Patzelt
James A. Peden
Benny Peiser
Al Pekarek
Tim Phillips
Ian Plimer
Harry N.A. Priem
Art Pope
Andreas Prokoph
Jim Puplava

R
Richard Rahn
Vijay Kumar Raina
Josef H. Reichholf
Paul Reiter
Matt Ridley
Malcolm Roberts
Art Robinson
Norman Rogers
Arthur Rorsch
Craig Rucker
Burt Rutan

S
Anthony J. Sadar
Nicola Scafetta
Rob Scagel
Harrison Schmitt
David Schnare
Joel Schwartz
Tom Segalstad
Jim Sensenbrenner
Frederick Seitz
Nir Shaviv
Gary D. Sharp
Robert C. Shoup (Bob Shoup)
Paavo Siitam
Joanne Simpson
S. Fred Singer
L. Graham Smith
Willie Soon
Lawrence Solomon
James Spann
Roy Spencer
H. Leighton Steward
Mark Steyn
John H. Sununu
Brian Sussman
Henrik Svensmark
Gordon E. Swaters

T
Tom Tanton
Roger Tattersall
George Taylor
James Taylor
Thomasz Teluk
Hendrik Tennekes
Holger J. Thuss
Utz Tillmann
Richard Tol
David Tuerck

V
Fritz Vahrenholt
Brian G. Valentine
Jan Veizer

W
James A. Wanliss
Anthony Watts
Gerd-Rainer Weber
Werner Weber
Edward Wegman
David Whitehouse
Boris Winterhalter
Bruno Wiskel
David Wojick
Joel Wood
Todd Wynn
Thomas Wysmuller

Z
Miklós Zágoni
Antonino Zichichi

lee wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 8:22pm:

random wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 8:14pm: Much heavier than Wattsfcukedup. Sorry, you have me confused. Who is Wattsfcukedup.?

I call him Wattsupme. Anthony Watts, the retired Weather presenter.

lee wrote on Dec 10^th, 2015 at 5:28pm:

Yes. Now what was it Greenpeace actually did. They set up a "business consultancy" and sought his views. After toing and froing, all in email form, which can be accessed and verified by the authorities, - 'He confirmed that his official title is Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Emeritus. He also reinforced his earlier message indicating he could not be bought by stating, very clearly:     “To be sure your client is not misled on my views, it is clear there are real pollutants associated with the combustion of fossil fuels, oxides of sulfur and nitrogen for most of them, fly ash and heavy metals for coal, volatile organics for gasoline, etc.  I fully support regulations for cost-effective control of these real pollutants.  But the Paris climate talks are based on the premise that CO2 itself is a pollutant. This is completely false. More CO2 will benefit the world. The only way to limit CO2 would be to stop using fossil fuels, which I think would be a profoundly immoral and irrational policy.” ' He has also called in the FBI, 'Greenpeace, in furtherance of what is in effect its war against every species on the planet, has now turned to what, on the face of things, looks to me like outright breach of the RICO, wire-fraud, witness-tampering and obstruction-of-committee statutes. I have called in the FBI.' same source That certainly sounds like a man with something to hide. Ah, Greenpiss.

I don't like your source, but I wouldn't trust Green Peace either.  Green Peace is basically a multinational company. They thrive on lies unfortunately. Whether or not Green Peace supports Climate Science is irrelevant.

I had a conversation with a Green Peace activist in Central Queensland.

He approached me and asked
- What's it like living in Australia's second most polluted city?

- I don't know. Where is Australia's second most polluted city? I presume it is one with a lot more traffic and population than this one. Do you mean overall, air pollution, water pollution or what?

- Oh it was in the local paper?
- What's the local paper called?
- The Mercury?
- No it isn't. You don't seem to know much, do you? Now tell me what is Australia's most polluted city, and what is the third most polluted city?
- Er - What do you feel about dredging in the Great Barrier Reef? (Shows a map)
- I can tell from your accent that you are Canadian. Show me on the map where you think the dredging is happening.
(Points to the gaps in the Great Barrier Reef)
- No it isn't. These are natural gaps that are used for shipping routes. Maybe you should do your homework before accosting people on the street.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You can attack Greenpeace all you like. They thrive on any controversy that will make them money.

random wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 10:12pm:

Oh alrighty then ...  here's a list of paid deniers, Watts is on it.  I refer to this often.  If I could post links and images I would post a diagram of the relationship between Exxon and Watts.  Can't even post a link right now so you will have to wait.

Oh, a list. Unidentified, Uncorroborated. Does it have the amounts paid to these deniers?

Are they regular payments? Or signicant one-offs?

Please feel free to review the uncorroborated list of deniers and let me know which persons should not be on it.

Standing by.

random wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 11:31am:

Please feel free to review the uncorroborated list of deniers and let me know which persons should not be on it. Standing by.

You mean I should take some unidentified list as kosher? You must be dreaming.

So it is Skeptical Science, DeSmogblog , HotWhopper or something of substance? Your unwillingness to supply the source leads me to suspect it's not something of substance.

lee wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 12:31pm:

random wrote on Jan 4th, 2016 at 11:31am: Please feel free to review the uncorroborated list of deniers and let me know which persons should not be on it. Standing by. You mean I should take some unidentified list as kosher? You must be dreaming. So it is Skeptical Science, DeSmogblog , HotWhopper or something of substance? Your unwillingness to supply the source leads me to suspect it's not something of substance.

Let's keep it simple for you.  Read the IPCC report.

random wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 12:33pm:

Let's keep it simple for you.  Read the IPCC report.

The IPCC lists paid deniers? Your credibility, what little you had, just went to zero.

I do not have, need or seek credibility.  I stand on the shoulders of giants ... scientists.

You on the other hand, got nothing.

random wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 4:24pm:

I do not have, need or seek credibility.  I stand on the shoulders of giants ... scientists. You on the other hand, got nothing.

I quote IPCC, NASA. NOAA, GISS and I have nothing?

I guess that means IPCC, NASA, NOAA,GISS have nothing.

[quote]I stand on the shoulders of giants ... scientists.]/quote]

But the scientists I quote include those of NASA, NOAA, GISS.

The term 'spinning' come to mind.  Not sure why.   ::)

random wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 5:52pm:

The term 'spinning' come to mind.  Not sure why.

Keep trying - you may gain traction.

I get it now, it's you spinning.

Must be hard to keep defending the tinfoil hat side of town.  You know, people think you are a bit loony after a while.

But I recommend you stop all contact with anything that is a product of science.  Cant trust scientists.  Go for naturapaths, faith healers, they are more in line with your principles.

random wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 6:46pm:

I get it now, it's you spinning. Must be hard to keep defending the tinfoil hat side of town.  You know, people think you are a bit loony after a while. But I recommend you stop all contact with anything that is a product of science.  Cant trust scientists.  Go for naturapaths, faith healers, they are more in line with your principles.

Really delusional. You should Marla, you're both on pot.

This communication medium was created by scientists, you better sign-off.  Can't trust scientists.

random wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 8:34pm:

This communication medium was created by scientists, you better sign-off.  Can't trust scientists.

Thank you for stating the obvious.

Bye bye it's been fun.

lee wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 9:26pm:

random wrote on Jan 4th, 2016 at 8:34pm: This communication medium was created by scientists, you better sign-off.  Can't trust scientists. Thank you for stating the obvious. Bye bye it's been fun.

Wat?  Another thread where you are running away?

JFC what a gerl!

random wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 9:56pm:

Wat?  Another thread where you are running away? JFC what a gerl!

;) ;D ::)

lee wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 8:30pm:

random wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 8:26pm: Wattsupwiththat is part of the Denial Industry.  Oh, who pays for them?

--> you don't have to get paid to be a denier: you just have to hate children and all that requires is having blue blood!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 6^th, 2016 at 12:58pm:

--> you don't have to get paid to be a denier: you just have to hate children and all that requires is having blue blood!

Who is denying what exactly?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 6^th, 2016 at 12:58pm:

lee wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 8:30pm: random wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 8:26pm: Wattsupwiththat is part of the Denial Industry.  Oh, who pays for them? --> you don't have to get paid to be a denier: you just have to hate children and all that requires is having blue blood!

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/28/meet-the-climate-denial-machine/191545

"Watts was paid by the Heartland Institute for his work on temperature stations and is a regular speaker at Heartland conferences."

random wrote on Jan 6^th, 2016 at 4:02pm:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/28/meet-the-climate-denial-machine/191545 "Watts was paid by the Heartland Institute for his work on temperature stations and is a regular speaker at Heartland conferences."

And when was the last time I quoted Watts?

Media matters? Founded by David Brock and funded by George Soros. Another one of those funny pages.

'Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz says he’s declaring war on the left-wing, George Soros-financed website Media Matters for America over its depiction of Israel. And Dershowitz says he’s going to make it into a re-election issue for President Barack Obama.

The information comes amid recent news, according to WND, that White House staffers held regular meetings and even a weekly conference call with Media Matters on campaign strategy.'

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/dershowitz-media-matters-israel/2012/02/27/id/430618/#ixzz3wRTe6XNB

Soros and Obama - what a pair.

But perhaps you missed this.

'New study of NOAA's U.S. Climate Network shows a lower 30-year temperature trend when high quality temperature stations unperturbed by urbanization are considered'

'A new study about the surface temperature record presented at the 2015 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union suggests that the 30-year trend of temperatures for the Continental United States (CONUS) since 1979 are about two thirds as strong as officially NOAA temperature trends.
Using NOAA’s U.S. Historical Climatology Network, which comprises 1218 weather stations in the CONUS, the researchers were able to identify a 410 station subset of “unperturbed” stations that have not been moved, had equipment changes, or changes in time of observations, and thus require no “adjustments” to their temperature record to account for these problems. The study focuses on finding trend differences between well sited and poorly sited weather stations, based on a WMO approved metric Leroy (2010) for classification and assessment of the quality of the measurements based on proximity to artificial heat sources and heat sinks which affect temperature measurement.


https://fallmeeting.agu.org/2015/press-item/new-study-of-noaas-u-s-climate-network-shows-a-lower-30-year-temperature-trend-when-high-quality-temperature-stations-unperturbed-by-urbanization-are-considered/

Presented by Watts at the American Geophysical Union fall meeting.

So NOAA's temperature trends are too hot by two thirds. And they use these for Global Temperatures.

But we can't question the science.

Wow, that's awesome.  So glad Soros and Obama are cooperating on countering the evil that is Exxon and the Koch Brothers.

random wrote on Jan 6^th, 2016 at 4:26pm:

Wow, that's awesome.  So glad Soros and Obama are cooperating on countering the evil that is Exxon and the Koch Brothers.

Absolutely nuts. Bye bye. You are too delusional for words.

lee wrote on Jan 6^th, 2016 at 4:26pm:

But we can't question the science.

Go ahead and question the science.  Just have some credible evidence.  Not seen any so far.

Couldn't resist.

you suffer from Confirmation Bias.

lee wrote on Jan 6^th, 2016 at 4:37pm:

Couldn't resist. you suffer from Confirmation Bias.

You suffer from cut and paste bias.

John Christy seems to be the scientist behind this. His credibility is not exactly  intact following his falsification of satellite data back in 2007. The only reliable thing you can say is that anything he is involved with in the realm of climatology will be dodgy.

I don't know if this is a poster or a paper.  Posters have much lower criteria for acceptance. I guess we'll have to wait for verification from other workers in the field. One paper (or poster) is hardly enough on its own, especially since previous work has shown that even without correcting for Urban Island Effect, the difference is negligible.

Got something credible lee? 

Nuh, didn't think so.  Conspiracy is it?

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3430/3211396764_4bd6fb6bb3.jpg

John_Taverner wrote on Jan 6^th, 2016 at 5:10pm:

John Christy seems to be the scientist behind this. His credibility is not exactly  intact following his falsification of satellite data back in 2007. The only reliable thing you can say is that anything he is involved with in the realm of climatology will be dodgy.

Funny. NOAA uses the John Christy UAH data. Strange huh?

What's this "thing" that he is supposedly behind?

You seem to be becoming delusional in your old age. Responding to posts with non sequtiurs.

random wrote on Jan 6^th, 2016 at 5:10pm:

Got something credible lee?  Nuh, didn't think so.  Conspiracy is it? https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3430/3211396764_4bd6fb6bb3.jpg

Whenever you are asked to provide something you revert to ad homs.

Anyone would think you have something to hide.

So you got something credible?

random wrote on Jan 6^th, 2016 at 6:01pm:

So you got something credible?

So still dodging the survey. You have absolutely no idea.

Oh I have the idea alright.  I go along with mainstream science.  Who do you agree with?

These guys?

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2009/04/tinfoil-hat.jpg

random wrote on Jan 6^th, 2016 at 6:47pm:

Oh I have the idea alright.  I go along with mainstream science.  Who do you agree with?

Deflecting from the issue of the 97% of scientists still. So sad.

Bye bye

What happened to your last slave?

The IPCC is correct.  You on the otherhand, are on the tinfoil hat side of the argument.

Must be hard continuing to push this barrow uphill.

http://worldofdtcmarketing.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Pushing-rock-uphill.png

:D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2009/04/tinfoil-hat.jpg

random wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 6:20am:

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2009/04/tinfoil-hat.jpg

They do say repetition is good if you have nothing else.

September 1957 - arctic decreases by 40%
http://i41.tinypic.com/2w6yrlg.jpg

May 1947 - arctic melting
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/22429983?searchTerm=climate%20change&searchLimits=

November 1922 - arctic melting
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

http://i39.tinypic.com/1z3t8y9.png


Quote:

Figure shows the following periods for relative global cooling and warming phases: 1. 30-years of global cooling from 1880 to 1910 2. 30-years of global warming from 1910 to 1940 3. 30-years of global cooling from 1940 to 1970 4. 30-years of global warming from 1970 to 2000

You're using an expired dataset. By the way my internet is going to be intermittent for the next 2 weeks.  You guys will have to survive without me.

lee wrote on Jan 6^th, 2016 at 5:56pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Jan 6th, 2016 at 5:10pm: John Christy seems to be the scientist behind this. His credibility is not exactly  intact following his falsification of satellite data back in 2007. The only reliable thing you can say is that anything he is involved with in the realm of climatology will be dodgy. Funny. NOAA uses the John Christy UAH data. Strange huh? What's this "thing" that he is supposedly behind? You seem to be becoming delusional in your old age. Responding to posts with non sequtiurs.

Satellite data falsification. Now fixed due to intervention by others.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/science/earth/errors-cited-in-assessing-climate-data.html

There are quite a few articles written about this. This is one of the earlier articles.

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 2:55pm:

You're using an expired dataset. By the way my internet is going to be intermittent for the next 2 weeks.  You guys will have to survive without me.

my internet is always intermittent

will you be apologising now or in 2 weeks time John?

http://viralgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/gentleman-monkey-chimp-smoking-suit-1360677567R.gif

random wrote on Jan 6^th, 2016 at 7:30pm:

What happened to your last slave? The IPCC is correct.  You on the otherhand, are on the tinfoil hat side of the argument. Must be hard continuing to push this barrow uphill. http://worldofdtcmarketing.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Pushing-rock-uphill.png

You sir are on DRUGS...nothing else can explain it....!!!

http://i67.tinypic.com/fbgxf8.png

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 3:20pm:

my internet is always intermittent will you be apologising now or in 2 weeks time John?

I'll apologize now for the vagaries of internet reception from the sea. ;D

Keep up the ruthless (albeit undignified) pursuit of integrity. 

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 3:15pm:

Satellite data falsification. Now fixed due to intervention by others. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/science/earth/errors-cited-in-assessing-climat... There are quite a few articles written about this. This is one of the earlier articles.

'The new analysis of data from weather balloons examined just one possible source of error, the direct heating of the instruments by the sun.

It found that when data were examined in a way that accounted for that effect, the temperature record produced a warming, particularly in the tropics, again putting the data in line with theory.'

So they found a new and exciting way to analyse the data. ;D ;D ;D

Two independent teams found errors in the way that Spencer and Christy processed the data. "Errors" that Christy himself acknowledged.

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 4:20pm:

Two independent teams found errors in the way that Spencer and Christy processed the data. "Errors" that Christy himself acknowledged.

Yep and there have been version updates, that account for known errors..And it is all documented.


Sorry I missed the 2005 timeline.

When was the last time NOAA documented errors?

"Things being debated now are details about the models," said Steven Sherwood, the lead author of the paper on the balloon data and an atmospheric physicist at Yale. "Nobody is debating any more that significant climate changes are coming."

From your reference,

Really? The science is that settled?

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 3:29pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 14th, 2016 at 3:20pm: my internet is always intermittent will you be apologising now or in 2 weeks time John? I'll apologize now for the vagaries of internet reception from the sea. ;D Keep up the ruthless (albeit undignified) pursuit of integrity.

;D

You're on a Yacht somewhere?

lee wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 4:31pm:

When was the last time NOAA documented errors?

NOAA are like your corporate mates EXXON-MOBIL and BHP etc - they dont make errors, so why document them?

lee, your apologies are overdue

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 4:53pm:

You're on a Yacht somewhere?

Probably heading to Antarctica with Turney.

From the 2005 Sherwood paper-

'The temperature difference between adjacent 0000 and 1200 UTC weather balloon (radiosonde) reports shows a pervasive tendency toward cooler daytime compared to nighttime observations since the 1970s, especially at tropical stations.'

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/309/5740/1556

But this from the IPCC -

'In the last 50 years for the land areas sampled, there has been a significant decrease in the annual occurrence of cold nights and a significant increase in the annual occurrence of warm nights (Figure 1). '

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-3-3.html

Weird. Put differently, but the same in effect.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 4:53pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 14th, 2016 at 3:29pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 14th, 2016 at 3:20pm: my internet is always intermittent will you be apologising now or in 2 weeks time John? I'll apologize now for the vagaries of internet reception from the sea. ;D Keep up the ruthless (albeit undignified) pursuit of integrity.  ;D You're on a Yacht somewhere?

I will be, as long as ex Cyclone Tatiana continues to move South.

lee wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 5:03pm:

From the 2005 Sherwood paper- 'The temperature difference between adjacent 0000 and 1200 UTC weather balloon (radiosonde) reports shows a pervasive tendency toward cooler daytime compared to nighttime observations since the 1970s, especially at tropical stations.' http://science.sciencemag.org/content/309/5740/1556 But this from the IPCC - 'In the last 50 years for the land areas sampled, there has been a significant decrease in the annual occurrence of cold nights and a significant increase in the annual occurrence of warm nights (Figure 1). ' https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-3-3.html Weird. Put differently, but the same in effect.

Years ago now I heard a story from an FM radio exec from a blue collar Coma FM, 'call us now for your chance to win $50' station.

Anyway it was about advertising (what a surprise) and who they got money from.  Bottom line was he didn't care if none of the air lines or travel agencies advertised with them because "our listeners don't get on planes".

Seems to be the same for climate change.  Deniers don't read.  They watch the 6 o'clock news, youtube and email attachments.

lee wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 5:03pm:

From the 2005 Sherwood paper- 'The temperature difference between adjacent 0000 and 1200 UTC weather balloon (radiosonde) reports shows a pervasive tendency toward cooler daytime compared to nighttime observations since the 1970s, especially at tropical stations.' http://science.sciencemag.org/content/309/5740/1556 But this from the IPCC - 'In the last 50 years for the land areas sampled, there has been a significant decrease in the annual occurrence of cold nights and a significant increase in the annual occurrence of warm nights (Figure 1). ' https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-3-3.html Weird. Put differently, but the same in effect.

random wrote on Feb 15^th, 2016 at 3:48pm:

Seems to be the same for climate change.  Deniers don't read.  They watch the 6 o'clock news, youtube and email attachments.

What a strange comment. My quote by Sherwood et al, is from Science, a presumably quality magazine. One which is much loved by the AGWers. And it is peer-reviewed.

The second quote is from the IPCC, also much loved by the AGWers.

So you don't think they should be taken as read?

The other funny thing about Sherwood. he didn't think the radiosonde data was very good, in fact unreliable. However, as his press release indicates, it is perfectly all right for his finding of the tropical tropospheric hotspot.

'"Using more recent data and better analysis methods we have been able to re-examine the global weather balloon network, known as radiosondes, and have found clear indications of warming in the upper troposphere," said lead author ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science Chief Investigator Prof Steve Sherwood.'

http://phys.org/news/2015-05-climate-scientists-elusive-tropospheric-hot.html#jCp

Now that is really weird.

See not a 6pm news, youtube or email. All from the published science. And if you can't see statements of climate change in that you need to upgrade your reading material. Give up your Phantom comics.

Reading is not just cut and paste of words of convenience.  Reading is about reading widely, sorting BS from facts.  Anyone who challenges the scientific consensus of what is happening to our climate has either a vested interest in doing so, e.g. Big Fossil energy, Bobby, the controlled media and the like, the rest just has not done their homework.  They sit back and get spoon fed content they have been trained to digest.

The poor students are in this position because the implications of climate change are outside the boundaries of their world view, they cannot and do not want to absorb it.

I have tolerance for fools and stupid people, they cannot help it in the main.  I have a very low tolerance for liars e.g. the lobby groups paid to lie, and those who shill for them for a few pennies, putting the health and well being of our descendants at risk.  For a few pennies.

Not doing homework is just lazy.  And just like a university assignment, including unscientific references in any homework results in very low marks.  Like dodgy Youtube stuff about weather extremes.

Finally, the worst part is that this lazy group always demands the highest level of peer reviewed and tested science if they take medication or give it to a loved one, but accept what quakes and charlatans say for the climate of the planet.

Faaaaarkin hypocrites.

random wrote on Feb 16^th, 2016 at 6:09am:

Reading is about reading widely, sorting BS from facts.

Which is the bs and which the facts IPCC or Sherwood and radiosonde data not good?
Sherwood - peer-reviewed science. IPCC conclusions drawn from peer-reviewed science.

lee you have a zero score for your last assignment. 

Please use established science to back your rationale'.  You appear confused about just what that is.  Do more homework.

random wrote on Feb 16^th, 2016 at 5:11pm:

lee you have a zero score for your last assignment.  Please use established science to back your rationale'.  You appear confused about just what that is.  Do more homework.

So what is the established science?

Sherwood et al and radiosonde data not good, causing night time temperature increases, Peer-reviewed and published in Science. Or the IPCC report which claims to use the peer-reviewed science showing night-time temperatures increasing, being caused by Climate Change/AGW?

Both are the 'established science'. No confusion on this end, however there appears to be on your end.

lee wrote on Feb 16^th, 2016 at 5:23pm:

random wrote on Feb 16th, 2016 at 5:11pm: lee you have a zero score for your last assignment.  Please use established science to back your rationale'.  You appear confused about just what that is.  Do more homework. So what is the established science? <snip>

wat i sed.  You have no faaaaarkin idea what science is.  Please go back to school, then come back and play with the smart people.

random wrote on Feb 16^th, 2016 at 7:46pm:

wat i sed.  You have no faaaaarkin idea what science is.  Please go back to school, then come back and play with the smart people.

I have a good idea what science is. You on the other hand have none.

Come back and play with the smart people? I have been. You're the one letting down the side. Not smart. Go back to skeptical science, it's more your speed.

You were the one who asked

"So what is the established science?"

just a couple of days ago.  The fact that you have no idea, as indicated by your question, is backed up by your posts containing tinfoil hat conspiracy theory BS.

I rest  my case.

random wrote on Feb 17^th, 2016 at 4:20am:

I rest  my case.

Don't rest your case take it with you. Everybody can see, should they look that it was rhetorical question with follow ups, that you "snipped".

It doesn't do anything for your credibility. ;D ;D ;D

Also the question was "What is the established science? And gave two options. I'm sorry your comprehension skills are lacking.

You have so many questions.  Please do some reading, then come back and have a conversation with the smart people.

random wrote on Feb 17^th, 2016 at 6:12pm:

You have so many questions.  Please do some reading, then come back and have a conversation with the smart people.

So funny. You think you are one of them. :D :D :D :D :D :D

Well i am definitely not on your side.  You are one of the sheeple, that makes me one of the smart people.

Please, for your own well being, do some reading, educate yourself.  Stop watching the channel 7 news, it been rotting your brain.

Get back to us when you feel better.

Thanks for your delusional rant. bye bye