Hansen's just a sad fraud whose 15 years of fame are up.
==================================

Yes,

Because we don't hear enough about global warming...it must be because people are being "muzzled".

There was another asshat who claimed about being repressed by Bush. He claimed it in the talk show circuit, several newspaper articles and at least 3 books on climate and global warming. He was so repressed he only got 3 or 4 weeks of almost constant media attention rather than the standard 6 month hype you see.

Maybe he is just upset because he did not get to hang out at the Oscars...

Real Funny, to bad the WH has acknowledged the conspriacy. 3/19/07

Philip Cooney, former chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, acknowledged at a House hearing that some of the changes he made were "to align these communications with the administration's stated policy" on climate change.

The extent of Cooney's editing of government climate reports first surfaced in 2005. Shortly thereafter, Cooney, a former oil industry lobbyist, left the White House to work at Exxon Mobil Corp.

Move along, nothing to see here.

Here's Hansen's testimony, for those interested in a little more than the Washington Times version. Can't find a transcript of the Q & A yet, assume it will show up here.

Since you helpfully didn't post a link, Barney, could you? I couldn't find anywhere in those two paragraphs where it mentions muzzling a scientist.

Also note, a conspiracy needs to involve more than 1 person, otherwise it's just a guy being dishonest.

I hugged my tree already today-have you?

I wonder when his book is coming out ?

How many blowjobs does the President get before he's called to task on it?

How many times does the Bush administration get to suppress Global Warming information before they're called to task on it?

Answer to both questions is: one.

Clinton only got one blowjob, or only a blow job from one person?

How'd the move go, Lee?

Hansen was referring to the time at NASA headquarters* where the public affairs staff was ordered to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists.

= not thereafter.

*(RE: Not the Wizbang Clowncar Climatology Center Based on Whut Teh Preznit Sez)

LA Times -- To support their charges Monday, the Democrats produced hundreds of pages of legal depositions, exhibits and e-mail exchanges between administration officials. The paper trail illustrated how officials with no scientific training shaped the administration's climate change message and edited global warming reports, inserting doubt in the place of definitive statements and diminishing the role people play in the planet's rising temperatures.

GOP apologists proposed one rather novel solution:

Republicans targeted a NASA director who testified about administration pressure, ... they disputed his contention that taxpayer-funded scientists are entitled to free speech. "Free speech is not a simple thing and is subject to and directed by policy," said Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah).

BarneyG Said: "Philip Cooney, former chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, acknowledged at a House hearing that some of the changes he made were "to align these communications with the administration's stated policy" on climate change."

And so long as it is a Democrat, it's OK. In Oregon, the Democrat Governor is trying to fire a climatologist who disagrees with Global Warming.

Here in WA, the University is doing the same to another.

But that's OK, because it's Democrats doing it.

Smells like hypocrisy.

VW

My guess is there were multiple blowjobs, but he was called to task for just one (IIRC).

Moving is hell - have you seen my remote control for the TV? This "getting up and walking over to the TV" is ridiculous!

AGAIN the dimmers prove their inability to understand. The administration said anyone can say anything as long as the science is there to back it up. That sounds really sound. Do I need to day it slower for the dims? ww

In Oregon, the Democrat Governor is trying to fire a climatologist who disagrees with Global Warming.

Here in WA, the University is doing the same to another.

Care to back either of those up?

What *exactly* about working for someone gives the employee the right to use the position to imply endorsement of something your employer does not support?

On the job interviews?

In any case, the Bush administration gave up on trying to fight the human global warming movement.

Too bad.

(My top blogpost, atm, has links to a documentary and article talking about some of the problems with the theory. If they are even marginally accurate the "fake but true" crowd has taken over science and *that* is a frightening thing.)

mantis, you know the guy! He claims to be the state climatologist even though the position does not exist, nor does the guy work in state government.

You have to believe in someone with non existing credentials like those.

mantis, why is Lindzen a subject of a lawsuit if not for his skepticism?
============================

1,400 intreviews. I repeat, 1,400 interviews.

This man has a funny sense of being "repressed".

And "over-up"?

Gee, didn't Al Gorezeera's movie win an Oscar? Why yes it did!

Get a life.

"mantis, you know the guy! He claims to be the state climatologist even though the position does not exist, nor does the guy work in state government."

aka "The Washington Wingnut" ???

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_020607_news_taylor_title.59f5d04a.html

Hows that?

VW

"1,400 intreviews. I repeat, 1,400 interviews."

It probably just took the Bush administration that long to notice... or haven't you come to grips with the total incompetence in the White House yet, Peter?

It only takes one commission of a crime to be guilty. The fact that the Bush administration had their head up their ass for several years on this issue doesn't get them off the hook when the supress info....

WHY did they do it now? Who knows? and it doesn't matter. Why did a crook rob a bank today after walking by 1,400 banks without robbing one previously? Who knows, and it doesn't matter...

Lee,

I know, I moved in January, not fun.

Haven't seen the remote. Get a long pole, it's a low tech remote as well as an ad-hoc weapon in case the thief that stole your remote comes back.

--

The paper trail illustrated how officials with no scientific training shaped..

Al Gore doesn't have scientific training to back up his claims, yet he seems to command quite a bit of credibility in certain circles.

and edited global warming reports, inserting doubt in the place of definitive statements and diminishing the role people play in the planet's rising temperatures.

The interesting thing is, there actually is doubt if you listen to both sides of the debate.

Regardless, editing those reports without consent is the wrong thing to do.

"AGAIN the dimmers prove their inability to understand. The administration said anyone can say anything as long as the science is there to back it up. That sounds really sound. Do I need to day it slower for the dims? ww"

Again, WildWillie proves what a buffoon he is.

Well, what do you think about the government adding to and altering written articles and other materials created by Mr. Hansen? Is that something the government should be doing? If you have a different opinion than Hansen, shouldn't you express it under your own name, not his?

I think the key part of the quote in the original post is this: "muzzled him because of his belief in global warming"

Did ya catch that? His BELIEF. Things based on beliefs are called religion.

Now all you socialist-regressives out there (Lee, Hugh, mantis, Barney) can you tell me why someone should be on the government payroll while they are practicing and promoting their religion?

If a Christian minister was also a govenment employee and he was holding thousands of press conferences to discuss his belief in Jesus while at his government job would you leftists support that?

I didn't think so. This is the same thing. Human induced global warming is a religion - not a science.

I guess to leftists, it's o.k. to combine church and state, as long as it's their church.

Are you suggesting that Hansen's "belief" in global warming is faith-based? Boy, he really wasted a lot of time getting B.A. in mathematics and physics, an M.S. in astronomy, and a PhD in Physics. I'm sure that he did all this in 1967 just so he could perpetuate a fraud to embarrass the Bush administration. He must be a (very forward-thinking) buffoon. That's the only rational explanation.

BTW, P. Bunyan (named appropriately after a man famous for his "tall tales"), what's your scientific expertise?

mantis, why is Lindzen a subject of a lawsuit if not for his skepticism?

The State of California has requested documents of communication between the auto industry and climate change skeptics, including Richard Lindzen, in a case brought by General Motors, DaimlerChrysler Corp., and the Association of Automobile Manufacturers against the state. Unless Lindzen is involved in another lawsuit, I assume this is what you were referring to. In any case, what's your point?

What *exactly* about working for someone gives the employee the right to use the position to imply endorsement of something your employer does not support?

I find the oft-repeated viewpoint that the United States is a private company amusing.

VW re: the "state climatologist" - lol!

Taylor has held the title of "state climatologist" since 1991 when the legislature created a state climate office at OSU. The university created the job title, not the state.

Maybe they were referring to his state of confusion about who he is and what his job is... lol! He apparenlty DOES NOT represent the State of Oregon.

I think the key part of the quote in the original post is this: "muzzled him because of his belief in global warming"

Did ya catch that? His BELIEF. Things based on beliefs are called religion.

I believe that word was chosen by Eric Pfeiffer, the Washington Times writer. And you know what, it also happens to be true. Is it my religion?

Now excuse me, I have to go to services at the Church of Gravity.

What *exactly* about working for someone gives the employee the right to use the position to imply endorsement of something your employer does not support?

Science. Integrity.

Hows that?

VW

Pretty stupid, VW. Oregon State University gave him that title, not the state of Oregon. The governor is going to appoint an actual state climatologist. This in no way endangers Taylor's job as you asserted.

Science and integrity is something terribly lacking in the human global warming sphere. SCIENCE exists in a place that promotes questioning rather than in a place of certainty. There IS NO certainty about human driven global warming. It's guesses, usually honest guesses, but that's what it is. For public consumption it's been played as a sure thing, a crisis undisputed.

Yet it is disputed. And there are charges that the research is fudged and misrepresented, but that's OKAY because even if it's FAKE it's TRUE.

This isn't science and it's not integrity.

It's belief and manipulation, but for a good cause so who the heck cares?

If it's true, why does the truth need to be embellished?

"Well, what do you think about the government adding to and altering written articles and other materials created by Mr. Hansen? Is that something the government should be doing?"

The UN climate council people did it.

Where's the outrage?

Synova --

You've provided no evidence for your hysterical ravings. (I'm just pointing this out in case others haven't noticed.)

Take a sedative.

BTW, what happened to P. Bunyan, the guy who think the truth depends upon whose (baby blue) ox is being (Al) gored?!

Publicus, if you aren't familiar with the contrary claims and literature, you've a sadly uninformed and one-sided view of the issue.

I'm familiar with the other side...and unconvinced.

The case you believe (but may not know much about) is well-covered at http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/about/sab/hodel.jsp

This site has people who actually understand something about science describing why they don't believe in global warming. They're not too convincing, but they are (at least) smart and knowledgeable.

Publicus is obviously a true believer in the Church of AGW.

Here's what I believe:

politicians the administration shouldn't alter the findings of a scientist; they can dispute them, but not alter them.

and the evidence for global warming is stronger than the case against it.

BTW - GREAT blog name "Sheik Yur Bouty"!

The global warming hysteria jumped the shark with Al Gore's Academy Award.

With these Carbon Credits which fund the planting of trees, what happens to the carbon when the tree dies? Certainly if the tree burns in a forest fire, the carbon is released back into the atmosphere, making Al Gore's carbon "investment" go up in smoke. But when the tree falls down and dies, doesn't the carbon also get released during the decomposing process?

Oh, this *is* very good isn't it.

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_020607_news_taylor_title.59f5d04a.html

Summary... *most* scientists believe that it's *likely* that humans are the cause of recent global warming. (It is *unscientific* to demand that people not question the scientific consensus.) It is the *policy* of the State of Oregon that, in fact, humans are the undisputed cause of global warming and some guy saying different is bad. (Even though science must allow challenging the conventional wisdom, this has become policy, not science.)

So although this fellow legitimately holds his title (whomever it was grated by) they want to take it away and appoint someone who will only say what conforms with the official policy of the state.

And this is okay, becuase it's okay to stiffle dissent and insist on the party line when you're right?

And we're supposed to believe that people who dare to suggest that CO2 is not a significant cause of global warming are NOT being systematically silenced?

"So although this fellow legitimately holds his title (whomever it was grated by) they want to take it away and appoint someone who will only say what conforms with the official policy of the state."

The title wasn't granted by the State of Oregon, it was granted by a University.

And yes, they want to appoint someone who will follow the policy set forth by the Governor. This asshat is free to believe and say what he wants, just not with the phony title as if he represents the State of Oregon. He doesn't.

And this is okay, becuase it's okay to stiffle dissent and insist on the party line when you're right? "

He can dissent all he wants - and he isn't being stifled -- he just needs to speak his lunacy with out a phony title.

Synova --

Yep. There is a dispute. In fact, there are disputes over almost everything. We have to make a decision even though there is a dispute: Are we to assume that global warming is false and do nothing about it? Or that it's true and try to mitigate it's effect.

You've got experts you believe in. A provided a link to a whole bunch of experts who take your viewpoint.

Neither one of us are scientists. What do we do?

Here's my thoughts:

1. Most of the experts who disbelieve in global warming are employed by or supported by industries that benefit from doing nothing about global warming. Not proof they are wrong, but a reason to question their credibility.

2. Many of the actions that would help mitigate climate change are things we should be doing anyway. For example, we should burn less petroleum because it polutes the air and keeps us dependent on foreign oil.

Thats (in large part) my reasoning for my position on global warming.

Count on Bush to unearth a geopolitical reason to go green. Sorry, P, there are a Hell of a lot of skeptics with no links to big corporations, energy related or not. There are a lot of true believers among the scientists with well funded cocoons.
==================================

Count on Bush to unearth a geopolitical reason to go green. Sorry, P, there are a Hell of a lot of skeptics with no links to big corporations, energy related or not. There are a lot of true believers among the scientists with well funded cocoons.

Kim --

Do tell. Supply your evidence and your argument.

BTW - do you favor or oppose dependence on foreign oil? And what's your position on air pollution?

So although this fellow legitimately holds his title (whomever it was grated by) they want to take it away and appoint someone who will only say what conforms with the official policy of the state.

You are full of shit Synova. The State Climatologist position for was dissolved by the Oregon legislature in 1989. The university created the job title. You can't be the State Climatologist if the state doesn't appoint you. Ahem:

Taylor is not among the leading Oregon scientists, including Abbott, whom Gov. Ted Kulongoski asked to help develop a state strategy on climate change. The governor last week questioned whether Taylor can legitimately call himself state climatologist since the position is not officially authorized in state law.

"He's not the state climatologist," the governor said. "I never appointed him. I think I would know.

You were saying something about legitimacy?

And this is okay, becuase it's okay to stiffle dissent and insist on the party line when you're right?

He can dissent all he wants, he just can't claim to hold a position that doesn't even exist (for now).

And we're supposed to believe that people who dare to suggest that CO2 is not a significant cause of global warming are NOT being systematically silenced?

Well, you might actually want some evidence for it before believing this.

Publicus,
Once this planet was in what is called the "ice age" and then over the eons, most of the glaciers melted. Wasn't many humans, auto exhaust, etc back then. Maybe a bunch of animal farts, but who knows.

This planet has had warming spells and cold spells, and most likely will. However, just send some warming this way, hard to play golf when it's in the 40's.

Yeesh,

What is this? The Lee and Mantis, leftie lovefest blog?

This used to be a nice place. Now it's a mess.

Screwed up the link above. Here it is.

FYI -

Your president visited a hybrid car plant today and is promoting a (very slow) improvement on energy efficiency in automobiles.

Yes, Pub, Hansen's belief in anthropogenic global warming is faith-based, because the science doesn't support it.

Yes, m, that's the chill on First Amendment rights I'm objecting to, about Lindzen.

climateaudit.org for those who want the truth, plain and highly technical.
===========

mesablue --

Don't despair! Welcome to the fray! It's a friendly debate.

This used to be a nice place. Now it's a mess.

Awwww.

Publicus,

Your president..

Unless you live in another country, he's yours as well.

As I say, P, there is an excellent geopolitical reason for Bush to go green. And in Texas there are environmental reasons to build your house green. They exist in Tennessee, too, but not for those with poor vision, and no honesty, like the Gorebellied Fool.
=========================

Yes, m, that's the chill on First Amendment rights I'm objecting to, about Lindzen.

You do realize that we're talking about a case brought against the state of California, right?

climateaudit.org for those who want the truth, plain and highly technical.

I'll see your "truth" and raise you!

Testimony to a House subcommittee detailed the desperate manner in which a lot of peer reviewed climate science all goes to the same cocooned bunch, and that was how the Piltdown Mann could promote his Crook't Hockey Stick. You could look it up, Publicus.

Foreign oil: too expensive; costs blood.

Air pollution: much less of it, lately.
=====================

kim -- So now that your side lost this argument you turn your attention to Gore?

Or are you just having trouble staying focused with your political party in flames? Not surprising....

The 'real' in realclimate is ironic. Ask any skeptic. That's Michael 'Piltdown' Mann's site. Even Gore doesn't believe in him, anymore.

I swear, you're like an anthropological expedition to discover how the AGW meme propagated. Catch up. We don't understand the climate. Period.
===========================

Lost what argument, Lee? God, you project.
=========================

mantis:

You earn brownie points from me for the Dr. Evil link.

"Uh-uh, you're gonna cry, aren't you?"

Yes, Pub, Hansen's belief in anthropogenic global warming is faith-based, because the science doesn't support it.

Kim --

You came to this conclusion...how?

Do you believe, mantis, that the state of California is incapable of tortious conduct?
================================

"politicians the administration shouldn't alter the findings of a scientist; they can dispute them, but not alter them."

This is the most important thing said in this debate. It's fine if the right wants to dispute the existence of global warming (most of the evidence is against them.) It is not ok, for politicians to muzzle or change the work of experts who have studied for years mastering their field. Doing so does us all a grave diservice.

I think I've never heard so loud,
The quiet message in a cloud.
=================

Publicus, I was going to let the couplet stand for how I came to my conclusions, but instead I'll direct you to climateaudit.org.
=====================================

Actually, RealClimate has quite a few contributors. I suppose you will dismiss them all because you don't like Mann.

We don't understand the climate. Period.

Wait, Kim. You're losing me here. What's your position again? Is climate change a big lie by the evil scientists? Or is it a mystery that nobody understands?

Do you believe, mantis, that the state of California is incapable of tortious conduct?

No, I'm curious what your objection is. Filing a motion for discovery in a case where the state is the defendant doesn't exactly strike me as "silencing dissent." Care to explain how it does?

Many of realclimate's contributors are the same cocooned bunch that the subcommittee decried. climateaudit.org is the domain of honest skeptics.

Climate regulation is a mystery that no one understands. It is a chaotic system, unmodelable at present. Only a few scientists are lying; many of the rest are just caught up in the tide. The skeptics are asking the good questions, and doing the good research, like the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation.
==================

Kim --

Did you read the content on climateaudit.org? Did you understand it? Did you read and understand the other point of view?

I've reviewed material which I believe Jay Tea kindly pointed me to some time back, http://www.co2science.org/. I've read a bit of that...most of it rather dense, but some of it readable by a non-scientist. Interesting, but for reasons I explained earlier, not convincing to me.

If you have to ask, mantis, you wouldn't understand. And Lindzen is only the most prominent case.
==========================

Look carefully in the archives at climateaudit.org, and you can find me writing with feeble undestanding, but good effect. I was drawn there before last years Congressional hearings in March and July that thoroughly debunked Michael 'Piltdown' Mann.
============================

If you have to ask, mantis, you wouldn't understand. And Lindzen is only the most prominent case.

If you can't even explain it, how obvious can it be? And trust me, I think I could "understand" it.

Did you read and understand the other point of view?

Kim--

I'll take your decision to ignore this question as a "no." You've come to your conclusion by listening to only one side of the debate.

When one of you AGW believers comes up with a credible explanation of the global temperatures from 1880 - 1910 (rising) and 1940 - 1970 (falling) against your CO2 up temperature up infantile correlation science I must continue to consider you the deniers of real science in this debate.

Sorry, Publicus, I can argue either side of the debate. Care to try me?
================================

C'mon, big boy; pretend you're a skeptic.
=========================

I see some of the lefties are trying that old leftist trick that they use in almost every arguement since they can so rarely win an argument honestly-- they are misrepresenting the agruments of the other side.

Almost no one is diputing global warming or climate change. Those that are are nuts.

Informed people who actually try to think and understand things (right-leaning persons) are disputing "catastrophic human induced global warming" not "global warming".

Just calling the leftist religous dogma in this matter "global warming" is as misleading as a MSM news broadcast or an article in the NY Times.

Periods of global warming, global cooling, and climate change have been occuring the last 4.5 BILLION YEARS or so. That is science.

Catastrophic human induced global warming that is being pushed by the left is based on beliefs, opinions, and faith. That is religion.

If you'd go look at climateaudit.org you'll find there are plenty of AGW believers arguing their points there. What you don't see there are scientists from realclimate defending their 'real' science.
==========================

Actually, PB, warming is not so certain. Sure, surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere are rising, possibly secondary to the effect of Urban Heat Island. Surface temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere are not rising. Ocean temperatures worldwide are not rising, nor are atmospheric temperatures.

The fact is we don't know what the temperature of the earth is doing. It is not a static system which can be measured easily.
==========================================

If you'd go look at climateaudit.org you'll find there are plenty of AGW believers arguing their points there. What you don't see there are scientists from realclimate defending their 'real' science.

They don't bother to go there anymore after having their comments deleted repeatedly. McIntyre has a nasty habit of doing that when his claims are challenged too effectively.

Do you 'understand' mantis, the calls to suppress climate skepticism on the grounds that skeptics are now endangering the human race?
=================================

mantis is so conversant with climateaudit.org that he knows the deleting policy of its owner.

Hah. Prove it.
===============================

Can you actually provide some examples of "calls to suppress climate skepticism on the grounds that skeptics are now endangering the human race?"

I've been deleted there, but it was for violating his policy against introducing politics or religion. Opposing points of view are a great deal more welcome at climateaudit.org than at realclimate.org
==============================

Hah. Prove it.

Start here.

It's an inconvenient truth, mantis.
====================

kim,

I never meant to imply that we know as a fact exactly how much the Earth's overall climate is warming or cooling at the present time. I am only pointing out that there have been many, many periods of global warming and global cooling since the Earth first came into existence and billions of years before the first humans ever walked the planet.

I personally believe that we were recently in a period of warming but are now starting to cool again. Of course it will take many years before this is evident.

Hah, again, mantis. I remember John Hunter; in fact I was in that thread.
Do you seriously want to keep company with Tim Lambert?
===========================

Opposing points of view are a great deal more welcome at climateaudit.org than at realclimate.org

That's funny, because I've seen Steve McIntyre comment at RealClimate many times.

We don't know, PB. I suspect we'll be cooling starting in 15 years, but that is just my best guess.
=========================

Do you seriously want to keep company with Tim Lambert?

Over Steve McIntyre? Any day.

We do seem to have been warming since the Little Ice Age. Just what is going on now, is unclear.
==========================

You pays your money, mantis, and you takes your chances. I've seen them both in active debate, and Steve is an honest man and Tim is the worst sort of sophist.
===========================

Or we could discuss the issues rather than the personalities.

Anybody want to pretend to skepticism so I can demonstrate that I understand what the believers believe?
======================================

I've seen them both in active debate, and Steve is an honest man and Tim is the worst sort of sophist.

Is McIntyre's use of sock puppets honest? Ok, that's a cheap shot. Don't get me wrong, I think that work done by people like McIntyre, McKitrick, and Wegman is valuable, though I don't know why they so often avoid peer-review. But the fact remains, despite your "debunked" assertions, that the reconstruction after fixing the errors pointed out by M&M doesn't change its general shape, and several reconstructions using different methodologies have gotten very similar results.

Oh, I'm still waiting for an example of how the California case, "calls to suppress climate skepticism on the grounds that skeptics are now endangering the human race."

kim, what about glacier's melting?

Glaciers have been receding since the Little Ice Age. Kilimanjaro has drier air now than historically. Greenland and Antarctica are bulking UP with ice.
=========================

Anybody want to pretend to skepticism so I can demonstrate that I understand what the believers believe?

Are you baiting so you can set up your strawman, or do you just like to show off?

FWIW I was skeptical about AGW until very recently, and remain skeptical about predictive models and many other claims by global warming advocates.

Wegman has avoided peer review? Go google, fool.

And see what von Storch says about Michael Mann, and he's no skeptic.
================================

Why were you skeptical until recently? The most recent proof of AGW is the most compelling. Computers are getting better at modeling. What claims by the the warmers did you doubt?
====================

As director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, I'm guess 99+% of his interviews were related to the shuttle program, Hubble telescope, Mars rovers, and other space exploration topics. It would be interesting to know exactly how many of those 1400 interviews had anything to do with world climate.

Now is he pretending to skepticism, or is he pretending to believe we'll believe he was a recent convert from skepticism?

I hope you were taking my challenge and pretending skepticism, because it passes all credulity to believe you used to be skeptical.
=====================================

Greenland and Antarctica are bulking UP with ice.

Really?

I assume you're referring to the fact that the higher elevations of Greenland are growing as is the East Antarctic sheet, but the ice loss elsewhere in Greenland and in the West Antarctic makes the mass change an overall loss (not to mention the fact that the growth was predicted by the climate models).

Wegman has avoided peer review?

The Committee on Energy and Commerce Report Wegman did for Barton (you know, the one where he disputes Mann) went through no review. That's what I was referring to. I notice you don't dispute M&M's avoidance of review.

Go google, fool.

Oh no, don't call me names! It hurts my feelings.

von Storch? I agree with him, especially his testimony at the committee hearing:

- The regression-type methods of the so-called "hockey-stick" studies of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (MBH) suffer from a number of problems, which should have been addressed before the "hockey-stick" was elevated to an authoritative
description of the temperature history of the past 10000-2000 years.
- The claim by the IPCCC TAR that there is reliable evidence that climate is beginning to change due to human action was based on a number of different lines of argument, which are insensitive to the validity of the MBH studies.
The present debate about the validity of the hockey-stick is of marginal relevance for the detection of present anthropogenic climate change. The major problems are not of statistical nature but are related to the social practice of climate change science.

Publicus: "Here's my thoughts:
1. Most of the experts who disbelieve in global warming are employed by or supported by industries that benefit from doing nothing about global warming. Not proof they are wrong, but a reason to question their credibility."

And experts who believe in human caused global warming are funded by whom? They *are* funded. The exact same questions can be applied to their credibility. What do their funders want to hear? What *focus* is likely to be awarded a grant?

And I do question if any industry would benefit from ignoring global warming as much as is implied by the coup de gras argument of "industry is paying you to lie."

I'm a bit inclined to think that if scientists who are funded by private sources are controlled by that funding that the exact same would have to be said of scientists funded any other way.

In other words... one side can't be prefered over the other side on this issue. It cancels it'self out.

Publicus: "2. Many of the actions that would help mitigate climate change are things we should be doing anyway. For example, we should burn less petroleum because it polutes the air and keeps us dependent on foreign oil.
Thats (in large part) my reasoning for my position on global warming."

And nicely put as well.

The need for clean air and water and an end to dependance on foreign oil are goods in and of themselves and should not need artificial boosting by emotionally manipulating people. In a lot of ways the environmental movement won. And that's a good thing. There are still those who refuse to view humanity as a cancer on the face of the earth, but they will agree that the environment matters because it matters to human quality of life. So let's go with that. Let's continue to clean up and take care of our environment.

My... discomfort... comes at this point: What measures *above* environmental care are required to stop the world from being destroyed in a man induced critical warming event? As it is, we really can't do squat so it doesn't matter if the human caused global warming people are wrong... we get the clean air without ever having the ability to screw the world up by trying to fix it.

What if, during the cooling scare a few decades ago, someone had figured out how to FIX the problem? What if they'd managed to do something that "Gaia" actually noticed? Where would we be now?

We hardly understand the process enough to do more than sort of guess that maybe, it's possible, that humans are making the Earth warmer. I find it more than alarming to contemplate the mindset that is so sure of itself that we might try to FIX the Earth. It's not just the hubris, but the danger that is astounding.

You know, I realized it the other day looking at a world map..Greenland is frickin huge!

Also, it's considered a desert, like the Antarctic, because the lack of precipitation.

Anyway, carry on.

Why were you skeptical until recently?

The extent of human influence on warming.

The most recent proof of AGW is the most compelling. Computers are getting better at modeling.

Yes, I know. Well, I would correct to say that computers and software are getting more powerful. Researchers are getting better at designing models. However, better computer models are not what convinced me.

What claims by the the warmers did you doubt?

The extent of human influence on warming. And I didn't "doubt," I remained unconvinced. I am now convinced (but always open to new evidence and interpretation).

Now is he pretending to skepticism, or is he pretending to believe we'll believe he was a recent convert from skepticism?

I don't care what you believe.

I hope you were taking my challenge and pretending skepticism, because it passes all credulity to believe you used to be skeptical.

I'm not pretending; I'm telling the truth. Believe it or not, I could not care less.

Good news from NASA for those in De Nile. A correlation anciently, between aurora boreales, ie sun activity, and Nile River levels.

mantis, now is the best time to be skeptical.
================================

Note what von Storch said about 'the social practice of climate change science'?
============================

Wegman is as authoritative as you can get in statistics. If, apparently too great an if, you had googled you'd see he has hundreds of peer reviewed citations. That his work for Barton was not peer reviewed is a pitiful objection. That's what you've got.

McKitrick has peer-reviewed stuff. McIntyre, had you the understanding to read his blog, is peer-reviewed daily.
==================================

Paul,

I'm happy to see that you can still make wacked lib's heads explode with just a few lines of code!

So these climate models which we've agreed aren't adequate predicted the bulking up of ice in Greenland and Antarctica which isn't really happening anyway. Why don't you step back and apply a little skepticism to what you yourself write.
========================

Good news from NASA for those in De Nile. A correlation anciently, between aurora boreales, ie sun activity, and Nile River levels.

Are there people running around saying that solar activity doesn't affect climate at all? In any case solar activity doesn't match our current warming. The curves diverged in 1980. Since then its been something else.

mantis, now is the best time to be skeptical.

Has nothing to do with time. Knowledge wears at skepticism.

Note what von Storch said about 'the social practice of climate change science'?

And like I said, I agree with him. I'm not an alarmist, either. I have no doubt that civilization will survive global warming.

Wegman is as authoritative as you can get in statistics.

You're right. I don't know why I included him in that description. All I knew was Wegman's report was prepared without any review, but hey, it's only for Congress so who cares I guess. It's M&M I'm familiar with. Wegman seems to be an eminent statistician. I don't disagree with his findings anyway. I just never cared enough to look him up because the errors he isolated, as von Storch pointed out, make no practical difference.

McIntyre, had you the understanding to read his blog, is peer-reviewed daily.

Yeah, you don't get to delete the parts of a review process you don't like.

So these climate models which we've agreed aren't adequate predicted the bulking up of ice in Greenland and Antarctica which isn't really happening anyway.

Interesting attempt to turn accurate predictions into a fault. First of all they predicted increased precipitation, not necessarily growth. I am skeptical about predictive climate models because there are so much variation among them and I do agree they need to take more variables into account. However, if any continue to accurately predict events it will be very compelling.

Not bad answers, m. Maybe you are honest after all. But I'm concerned about your comment that knowledge wears at skepticism. Ah, yes, you are a true believer.
===================================

This is a new study about the Nile, very recent. Solar activity has varying meanings. First of all, total energy from the sun, insolation, is very gradually rising as the reactor gets stronger. This increase varies around the gradually rising curve so some solar cycles are stronger than others. Then there is sunspot activity with its variable effect on the magnetic fields, hence cosmic ray penetration, hence cloud formation; as well as other solar behaviours.

There are several unexplained divergences in the theory of climate science. There is a nice one on tree ring widths and temperature, lately, also.

So, once again, why are you less skeptical in these days of widening skepticism?
=============================

I got a unified theory. Wanna hear it?
=========================

I like the admission, though; functionally, if you are not an alarmist, you are a skeptic. Welcome back.
===============================

When do think these computers will be able to predict events in a chaotic system?
================================

Mantis... (wading into the fray)

While it is a firm belief of mine that "global warming" is a hoax, I also know that an unexamined belief is not worth having....

SO since you've only recently been convinced of man's role, what exactly convinced you? ... Don't tell me Al Gore's movie? ;-)

I know you've sorta gone OCD on this of late, what have you found so compelling? From where I sit, I see no more compelling science but, frankly, the hysteria quotient has been ratcheted up so high, I'm more skeptical than ever.

Convince me.

and Kim, enough with the post-o-matic.

If the Earth's magnetic field is an issue then I'm back to my earliest doubts (beyond the fact that my childhood was full of viking lore and I knew darn well that Greenland used to not be covered in ice) about climate prediction taking into account the fact that the Earth is preparing to flip poles.

Now, perhaps it was here that someone said that scientists now believe that the Earth's magnetic field is not going to disappear completely but they do still think it's going to get spotty and variable for a while, yes? In fact changes in it were what prompted scientists to find out *why*.

Any change in the Earth's magnetic field ought to make changes in the amount of energy that gets through it. So, it seems, the sun spot and other solar variables may be joined by this other variable that *hasn't been* since nearly forever.

Everybody hug a tree before bedtime.

Ugh, no. All the trees around here are scrub pinon and cedar (with a few gambol oak shrubs thrown in for good measure) and hugging them is not advised. They are prickly and covered in sap!

I did plant some flowers this afternoon, however, and moved a few things around. Best was I was fixing stuff up in my "woodland" garden and discovered a cactus I'd never noticed before under a bush, a rather big "claret cup" type, that I was able to move just a few feet to a spot front and center where it might get just enough more sun to bloom. They prefer to be under the trees but it was all covered up, which is why I'd never seen it the whole time we've lived here I guess.

I might be giddy about finding the silly thing but I'm not going to hug the cactus either. So there! LOL.

I'll come back tomorrow with something longer, but it was a few things, Paul, and none of them was Gore's film, which I found simplistic, condescending and alarmist. Flannery's The Weather Makers presents the best overall case I've seen.

Help, help, I'm being repressed.
==================

OK Kim THAT was funny... and it only took a single post.

Mantis, when you write it, cover whether this is "new science" or "new to you" science.

P

Read Jonathan Rauch's article 3/23/07 in ReasonOnline entitled, 'The Convenient Truth'.
====================================