Errors continue to add up for AGW proponents
D’Aleo and Watts have produced a 110 page paper on problems with the measurement of surface temperature in the matter of AGW. It makes for interesting reading. There is also an amusing piece in the China Daily that refers to the ancient Chinese wisdom that two errors can be discounted but the third error constitutes a tipping point — the IPCC has at least three errors of significance, and a whole lot more if you take into account the work of the gentlemen above. It would seem that it’s only a matter of time now. HT’s: Powerline, AT
February 2nd, 2010 at 9:56 pm
“Climate change deniers don’t like being called deniers because it implies their worldview is fundamentally irrational. But their worldview is fundamentally irrational, as you can see by keeping track of their steady stream of fallacious arguments and errors of fact.” “What exactly motivates these people? The science is rock solid and each individual must at some level know that they are lying. The question is why do they do it. It is easy to understand the paid lobbyists and others who benefit directly from denying the blindingly obvious, and similarly easy to understand selfish individuals who accept the reality of global warming but refuse to act to help stop it.”
Observed trends on greenhouse gas emissions, measured since the last major report by the IPCC, reveal that the IPCC has been too conservative, having underestimated how quickly we would be pushed toward dangerous change. Actual carbon emissions have been beyond even their “most fossil-fuel-intensive scenario”. Crowing over the inclusion in its last report of an erroneous date for the melting of Himalayan glaciers drowned out a new report from the World Glacier Monitoring Service, that detailed an “unbroken acceleration in melting” of glaciers around the world.
You do believe only whom you wish to. Your “110 page paper” is as worthless as its sources. Although at least Joe D’Aleo has a master’s degree, Anthony Watts, a former weatherman and ideologue, has no college degree, and in any other sphere of commentary would be judged a buffoon, with no more credibility than a conspiracy buff who thinks the moon landing was faked. And this was “published” by the “Science & Public Policy Institute”, a polluting-industry front. SPPI was founded in mid-2007 by Robert Ferguson after he left his post as executive director of the Center for Science and Public Policy (a project of Frontiers of Freedom). Beating the truth around the ears has long been the strategy of the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, which calls itself the “antithesis” of the green movement. In 1996, former Senator Malcolm Wallop (R-WY) started Frontiers of Freedom to fight environmental regulations, particularly the Endangered Species Act and any law seen as infringing on “property rights.” But increasingly, it has focused on the issue of global warming. After a $100,000 grant from ExxonMobil in 2002, FoF set up the Center for Science and Public Policy in 2003. The CSPP concentrates on two areas: trashing global warming science, and also questioning the scientific evidence on the dangers of mercury emitted from coal-fired power plants. In addition to grants from conservative foundations, Frontiers of Freedom receives money from tobacco and oil companies, including Philip Morris, ExxonMobil and RJ Reynolds Tobacco.
February 3rd, 2010 at 3:07 am
OK. I’ve asked this question a countless number of time to all of those who say that man (the global man not just the male of the species) is the total cause of global warming. Here it is again. Answer it and I too, will become a believer in AGW.
Earlier this decade a norse village was discovered under a glacier in Greenland. How did those villagers build that settlement under the ice? After all, if man-made global warming is causing the glaciers to retreat, building that village must have been very difficult. How did they do it?
February 3rd, 2010 at 3:55 am
Steve, people who lie to me have already lost the argument. I literally do not care what these pseudoscientists write or believe. They have faked data and hidden data that contradicts their claims. I remain unconvinced. I wouldn’t pay five dollars to “stop global warming.”
February 4th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
Steve, I’ll be watching for your apology in the near future. Of course if what has already been exposed does not alloy your religious fervor, I guess no amount of proof will get you to open your mind. If the “facts” change will you? I doubt it. We still have few Flat Earthers around even today.
February 5th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Man, nothing like a true believer, Steve! Keep whistling past that graveyard!
February 5th, 2010 at 8:07 pm
Climate change is still happening–it’s worse than most of the models had predicted. Let deniers whine about hacked emails, solar radiation, or whatever they’d like to whine about: facts are facts. And far enough facts have been collected over the decades to produce an overwhelming supply of evidence that global warming is happening, and happening now. Let the deniers whine–the rest of us have work to do.
This week, the Pentagon called climate change a threat to national security that “may spark or exacerbate future conflicts.” The assessment was part of the Pentagon’s official review of military risks, and labeled global warming “an accelerant of instability.”
With this report, the Pentagon has put global warming on the geopolitical map. Members of the Tea Party who support strong defense but deny the existence of climate change will also have a hard time ignoring this one.
February 6th, 2010 at 12:12 pm
Steve, I suggest you do more reading, you’re about a month behind the wave of truth. Your “facts” are getting the people who told you them fired, reassigned, investigated, and shamed. You got scammed, hoodwinked, and taken for a ride. It’s understandable, but the truth is out there now, so it’s all on you from here on.
February 8th, 2010 at 7:33 am
Steve, if you have “facts” why not supply some? It seems to me that although it is still probable that the earth is perhaps 1F warmer than it was a century ago, it looks increasingly unlikely that this increase is historically unprecedented (the hockey stick) or is likely to become catastrophic (Himalayan glaciers, Amazon drying). And the Chinese urban/rural data and other matters in the thermometer record make even the 1F temp increase look more and more like perhaps a two-fold exaggeration.
BTW, the Pentagon does not engage in research on whether global warming is happening. For the purposes of such reports, the Pentagon assumes the bad results of climate change (e.g., rising sea levels, drastically altered precipitation patterns), and tries to figure what security problems will result from those changes.
February 8th, 2010 at 7:36 am
Steve, the only climate fact you seem to present here is that CO2 etc. gas levels are rising faster than expected. But despite this, we have seen no warming in the last decade or 12 years. So why does that fact support the thesis of CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming)?