APS and the Global Warming Scam


Recommended Posts

So, I am going to claim the newest ad hominem for myself ('and your little dog, too!), since my basic take on the issue is near as a nose to Naomi's [...].

Naomi has no proper basis for an opinion on "AGW." She didn't even know what she meant by the term when she opened by asserting that "It's been proven." Upon my questioning her, she twice changed her meaning, acceding to two incompatible meanings in process, finally settling on the IPCC Summary Report for Policy Makers (which is primarily an assignment of "confidence levels," not a scientific statement) as her meaning. Her basic answer is, Whatever the scientists say. Which scientists? The supposed "peer-reviewed" supposed "consensus" - but in fact there isn't any such "consensus," beyond the bare minimum that human-produced atmospheric CO2 has a proportionately small effect IF atmospheric CO2 has any effect on "the global mean temperature anomaly" (itself a rickety measurement, but that's an issue which hasn't been discussed here).

Is this the sort of non-seaworthy epistemological boat you want to put yourself into "near as a nose"?

Ellen

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

  • Replies 989
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I have no idea  who started the notion that global warming is a hoax.    Tyndall showed that CO2 retards the out-radiation in the IR bands back in 1880.  So we get a blanket effect. CO2 does not

Technically Lindzen is correct.  But blanket is a good analogy.  Blankets keep your body from losing heat quickly on a cold night.  The CO2, NH4 and H2O(g)  slow down the rate at which IR energy is ra

I am glad you posted that.  I was going to post Palmer's lecture.  it is excellent and it deals quite well the difficulties in making decent models of climate.  His discourse on the Navier Stokes equa

Hmm...since the death doll is gone, I found this article to be subject to discussion.

The paradox of expanding Antarctic sea ice has troubled scientists for many years. Although climate models predict southern sea ice should shrink, it has stubbornly refused to do so. In fact, between the last two reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which came out just seven years apart, the rate of Antarctic sea ice growth more than doubled.

Hmm...

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm...since the death doll is gone, I found this article to be subject to discussion.

The paradox of expanding Antarctic sea ice has troubled scientists for many years. Although climate models predict southern sea ice should shrink, it has stubbornly refused to do so. In fact, between the last two reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which came out just seven years apart, the rate of Antarctic sea ice growth more than doubled.

Hmm...

A...

Leave it to liberals to believe the lie that ice could actually be stubborn. :laugh:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a term I ran across: Gore Effect. (That's a Wikipedia link, and yup, it's got it's own page.)

It's hilarious.

Basically, it's a forecast of cold weather whenever Al Gore shows up to talk about global warming.

:smile:

MichaeL

So if the ski slope owners need a good snowfall to bulk up business they should invite Al Gore to speak on Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I will donate to a "Summer" Antarctica conference to be held in December 2014 at the South Pole.

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...

Isn't there a civil action that can be filed against this imbecile?

How many businesses and individuals have been demonstrably harmed, by civil standards of proof, e.g., apreponderance of the evidence.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html#ixzz3C0JWUqUP

If you look at the photos in the center of the article, we have a nice example of alleged photographic

journalistic malfeasance.

The "shrunken" photo of 2012 that is juxtaposed with the "expanded photo" of the "growing" artic ice

is just plain sad.

Or, am I being too picky lol...

A...

anyone feelin chilly on the last day of August?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If those global warming, crony socialist, lunatics would just drop the subject the real scientists would be better able to predict how bad the winter on the eastern half of the US will be. Should I buy a new parka or go with my old one? Stock some more food? Buy boots? Since they have been so laughingly wrong how can they look themselves in the mirror in the morning?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If those global warming, crony socialist, lunatics would just drop the subject the real scientists would be better able to predict how bad the winter on the eastern half of the US will be. Should I buy a new parka or go with my old one? Stock some more food? Buy boots? Since they have been so laughingly wrong how can they look themselves in the mirror in the morning?

http://farmersalmanac.com/weather/ <<<< great link - been reading it since I could read...and no it was not last year...

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Priceless article from http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/11/list-of-excuses-for-the-pause-in-global-warming-is-now-up-to-52/

List of excuses for ‘the pause’ in global warming is now up to 52

Anthony Watts / 1 day ago September 11, 2014

Updated list of 52 excuses for the 18-26 year ‘pause’ in global warming (compiled by WUWT and The

HockeySchtick)

RSS satellite data showing the 18 year ‘pause’ of global warming

An updated list of at least 29 32 36 38 39 41 51 52 excuses for the 18-26 year statistically significant ‘pause’ in global warming, including recent scientific papers, media quotes, blogs, and related

debunkings:

1) Low solar activity

2) Oceans ate the global warming [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]

3) Chinese coal use [debunked]

4) Montreal Protocol

5) What ‘pause’? [debunked] [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]

6) Volcanic aerosols [debunked]

7) Stratospheric Water Vapor

8) Faster Pacific trade winds [debunked]

9) Stadium Waves

10) ‘Coincidence!’

11) Pine aerosols

12) It’s “not so unusual” and “no more than natural variability”

13) “Scientists looking at the wrong ‘lousy’ data” http://

14) Cold nights getting colder in Northern Hemisphere

15) We forgot to cherry-pick models in tune with natural variability [debunked]

16) Negative phase of Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation

17) AMOC ocean oscillation

18) “Global brightening” has stopped

19) “Ahistorical media”

20) “It’s the hottest decade ever” Decadal averages used to hide the ‘pause’ [debunked]

21) Few El Ninos since 1999

22) Temperature variations fall “roughly in the middle of the AR4 model results”

23) “Not scientifically relevant”

24) The wrong type of El Ninos

25) Slower trade winds [debunked]

26) The climate is less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought [see also]

27) PDO and AMO natural cycles and here

28) ENSO

29) Solar cycle driven ocean temperature variations30) Warming Atlantic caused cooling Pacific [paper] [debunked by Trenberth & Wunsch]

31) “Experts simply do not know, and bad luck is one reason”

32) IPCC climate models are too complex, natural variability more important

33) NAO & PDO

34) Solar cycles

35) Scientists forgot “to look at our models and observations and ask questions”

36) The models really do explain the “pause” [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]

37) As soon as the sun, the weather and volcanoes – all natural factors – allow, the world will start

warming again. Who knew?

38) Trenberth’s “missing heat” is hiding in the Atlantic, not Pacific as Trenberth claimed

[debunked] [Dr. Curry's take] [Author: “Every week there’s a new explanation of the hiatus”]

39) “Slowdown” due to “a delayed rebound effect from 1991 Mount Pinatubo aerosols and deep prolonged

solar minimum”

40) The “pause” is “probably just barely statistically significant” with 95% confidence: The “slowdown” is “probably just barely statistically significant” and not “meaningful in terms of the public

discourse about climate change”

41) Internal variability, because Chinese aerosols can either warm or cool the climate:

The “recent hiatus in global warming is mainly caused by internal variability of the climate” because “anthropogenic aerosol emissions from Europe and North America towards China and India between 1996 and 2010 has surprisingly warmed rather than cooled the global climate.”

[before this new paper, anthropogenic aerosols were thought to cool the climate or to have minimal

effects on climate, but as of now, they "surprisingly warm" the climate]

42) Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’ really is missing and is not “supported by the data itself” in the “real ocean”:

“it is not clear to me, actually, that an accelerated warming of some…layer of the ocean … is robustly supported by the data itself. Until we clear up whether there has been some kind of accelerated warming at depth in the real ocean, I think these results serve as interesting hypotheses about why the rate

of surface warming has slowed-down, but we still lack a definitive answer on this topic.” [Josh Willis]

43) Ocean Variability: [NYT article]

“After some intense work by of the community, there is general agreement that the main driver [of

climate the "pause"] is ocean variability. That’s actually quite impressive progress.” [Andrew Dessler]

44) The data showing the missing heat going into the oceans is robust and not robust:

” I think the findings that the heat is going into the Atlantic and Southern Ocean’s is probably pretty robust. However, I will defer to people like Josh Willis who know the data better than I do.”-Andrew

Dessler. Debunked by Josh Willis, who Dessler says “knows the data better than I do,” says in the very same NYT article that “it is not clear to me, actually, that an accelerated warming of some…layer of

the ocean … is robustly supported by the data itself” – [Josh Willis]

45) We don’t have a theory that fits all of the data:

“Ultimately, the challenge is to come up with the parsimonious theory [of the 'pause'] that fits all of the data” [Andrew Dessler]

46) We don’t have enough data of natural climate cycles lasting 60-70 years to determine if the “pause” is due to such natural cycles:

“If the cycle has a period of 60-70 years, that means we have one or two cycles of observations. And I don’t think you can much about a cycle with just 1-2 cycles: e.g., what the actual period of the

variability is, how regular it is, etc. You really need dozens of cycles to determine what the actual

underlying variability looks like. In fact, I don’t think we even know if it IS a cycle.” [Andrew

Dessler]

47) Could be pure internal [natural] variability or increased CO2 or both

“this brings up what to me is the real question: how much of the hiatus is pure internal variability

and how much is a forced response (from loading the atmosphere with carbon). This paper seems to

implicitly take the position that it’s purely internal variability, which I’m not sure is true and

might lead to a very different interpretation of the data and estimate of the future.” [Andrew Dessler in an NYT article ]

48) Its either in the Atlantic or Pacific, but definitely not a statistical fluke:

It’s the Atlantic, not Pacific, and “the hiatus in the warming…should not be dismissed as a statistical fluke” [John Michael Wallace]

49) The other papers with excuses for the “pause” are not “science done right”:

” If the science is done right, the calculated uncertainty takes account of this background variation. But none of these papers, Tung, or Trenberth, does that. Overlain on top of this natural behavior is

the small, and often shaky, observing systems, both atmosphere and ocean where the shifting places and times and technologies must also produce a change even if none actually occurred. The “hiatus” is

likely real, but so what? The fuss is mainly about normal behavior of the climate system.”

[Carl Wunsch]

50) The observational data we have is inadequate, but we ignore uncertainty to publish anyway: [Carl

Wunsch in an NYT Article]

“The central problem of climate science is to ask what you do and say when your data are, by almost any standard, inadequate? If I spend three years analyzing my data, and the only defensible inference is

that “the data are inadequate to answer the question,” how do you publish? How do you get your grant

renewed? A common answer is to distort the calculation of the uncertainty, or ignore it all together, and proclaim an exciting story that the New York Times will pick up…How many such stories have been withdrawn years later when enough adequate data became available?”

51) If our models could time-travel back in time, “we could have forecast ‘the pause’ – if we had the

tools of the future back then” [NCAR press release]

[Time-traveling, back-to-the-future models debunked] [debunked] ["pause" due to natural variability]

52) ‘Unusual climate anomaly’ of unprecedented deceleration of a secular warming trend [PLOS one Paper macia et al. discussed in European Commission news release here.]

———————————————————————

Additional related comments from climate scientists about the “pause”

1) My University screwed up the press release & didn’t let me stop them from claiming my paper shows the “hiatus will last another decade or two.” [Dessler]2) “This [the 'pause'] is not an existential threat to the mainstream theory of climate.” [Andrew Dessler]

3) “In a few years, as we get to understand this [the 'pause'] more, skeptics will move on (just like they dropped arguments about the hockey stick and about the surface station record) to their next reason not to believe climate science.” [Andrew Dessler]

Link to post
Share on other sites

If those global warming, crony socialist, lunatics would just drop the subject the real scientists would be better able to predict how bad the winter on the eastern half of the US will be. Should I buy a new parka or go with my old one? Stock some more food? Buy boots? Since they have been so laughingly wrong how can they look themselves in the mirror in the morning?

Oh, Peter, it's gonna be bad.

--Brant

the end is near!

the end of the end is coming!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If those global warming, crony socialist, lunatics would just drop the subject the real scientists would be better able to predict how bad the winter on the eastern half of the US will be. Should I buy a new parka or go with my old one? Stock some more food? Buy boots? Since they have been so laughingly wrong how can they look themselves in the mirror in the morning?

Oh, Peter, it's gonna be bad.

--Brant

the end is near!

the end of the end is coming!

No. From "The Game of Thrones" Winter is coming.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the sets of The Iron Throne of the Seven Kingdoms in Belfast Northern Ireland, Malta, Scotland, Croatia, Iceland, The United States, Spain, and Morocco, Ba'al Chatzaf wrote:

No. From "The Game of Thrones" Winter is coming.

end quote

I am privileged. Many of you may not know but Bob (Ba'al Chatzaf) has the stage name of Peter Dinklage. He is the small counsel to the King and his characters name is Tyrion Lannister on "Game of Thrones." And he is not English, but was born in Morristown, New Jersey!

Bob, what can you tell us about the new season, but without too many spoilers?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The truth of the matter is we are living in a mild interglacial period. There was a warming trend in the Middle Ages which came to and end around 1350 when a cooling trend set in (the Little Ice Age) and that persisted until about 1720 after which the warming set in again. The history of earth's climate has been a roller coaster ride between cold and warmer. The major developments in human civilization occurred during a rather mild interglacial period starting about 12,000 bp and except for some relatively short cooling periods has remained with us since. Man survived the real Ice Age (just barely) and has flourished during this interglacial epoch. The next thing we can reasonably anticipate is another cooling period, which will be a relatively short one like the Little Ice Age or a genuine Ice Age which could last thousands of years, unless humans are clever enough to shorten it by technological means.

Bottom line. Climate changes. Climate has always changed It is driven by purely natural processes and until recently nothing Man has done can possibly modify it. It may be we have keep our current interglacial moderate period going a bit longer by increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, but nothing Man can do can possibly change Earth into another Venus. If we manage to keep the moderate weather going for another 100 or 200 years good for us, good for out children and great grandchildren a few generations down the road.

Keep in mind what they say on "Game of Thrones" : Winter is coming.

Ba'al Chaztaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's double the fun.

Even the Christian God is laughing:

Al Gore's microphone fails while quoting Jesus on word 'hypocrite'

I will tell you that he has never been as cogent to me until he hit that podium...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...

Here's how to settle science, like when Obama claimed in his last State of the Union Address that man-made climate change is settled for once and for all.

But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact.

Just make bare-faced lies and persecute scientists who disagree.

CLIMATE MCCARTHYISM: THE SCANDAL GROWS

by JAMES DELINGPOLE

16 May 2014

Breitbart

From the article:

Professor Lennart Bengtsson - the scientist at the heart of the "Climate McCarthyism" row - has hit back at his critics by accusing them of suppressing one of his studies for political reasons.

. . .

What's more significant is that this story has made it to the front page of the Times. Like most of the mainstream media, the Times has been remarkably slow to latch onto the corruption, malfeasance, waste, dishonesty, bullying and lies which are rife throughout the climate change industry. If it hadn't been for the internet and sites like Watts Up With That? and blogposts like this one the Climategate scandal would have passed almost without notice.

Finally, it seems, the MSM is beginning to wake up to something it really ought to have picked up on long ago: the greatest and most expensive scientific scandal in history, in which a cabal of lavishly grant-funded, activist-scientists from Britain to Australia, Germany to the US, has exaggerated the evidence for "man-made global warming" and attempted ruthlessly to suppress the work of sceptical scientists who dispute the "consensus."

. . .

The Bengtsson scandal comes at the end of an exceedingly bad week for the cause of climate alarmism. In other news, still further scorn has been poured on the methodology of the Cook et al paper on the "97 per cent consensus."

John Cook is an Australian alarmist who a year ago produced a paper purporting to show that 97 per cent of studies supported the "consensus" on man-made global warming. It was eagerly seized on by the left-wing activists who run President Obama's Twitter account, who gleefully tweeted under the name @barackobama "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous" - with a link to the paper.

But the paper, in fact, showed nothing of the kind. Recently a researcher named Brandon Shollenberger gained access to some of the data used in Cook's paper and found the statistical methodology to be fatally flawed. However, when he raised these points with Cook's employer the University of Queensland he received a stiff lawyer's letter forbidding him from contacting Cook or even making any mention that he had been sent the letter.

Given how often the "97 per cent" consensus figure is quoted by politicians and scientists alike to justify the extreme measures being adopted to "combat climate change", you can well understand why the alarmist establishment is so eager to suppress this inconvenient truth.

Something's getting settled, all right. In the mainstream, at that.

But it may not be what the man-made climate change gang want.

Michael

The assault on Dr. Soon.

So far, global warming Leftists haven’t been able to find any technical flaws in the Science Bulletin paper, which you can download here. So, naturally, they have resorted to smearing its authors. Greenpeace focused on Dr. Soon, an astrophysicist who works part time for the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Greenpeace served a Freedom of Information Act request on the Smithsonian, a public entity, for documents relating to funding of Dr. Soon’s projects. Greenpeace claims that these documents show that Dr. Soon’s projects received funding from Southern Company Services that was not disclosed in certain papers that Dr. Soon published.

The New York Times, having been fed the documents by Greenpeace, eagerly took up the cudgels for global warming Leftists, publishing a supposed expose under the headline, “Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher.” The Times and its fellows on the Left argue that Dr. Soon should have disclosed certain corporate funding with respect to past projects–not, however, the recent paper that the Left seeks to discredit.

An interesting paper: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11434-014-0699-2

At any rate, the author asserts that:

This is the point I really want to make: the New York Times and other pro-government sources assume that government funding of research is lily-white, while corporate funding is inherently suspect. This is ridiculous. Put aside, for a moment, the fact that the American environmental movement is funded by Russia’s state-controlled oil company.

Continuing, he explains that:

That isn’t the real scandal. The real scandal is that the overwhelming majority of money spent on climate research comes from governments. Governments, most notably ours, fund climate hysteria to the tune of billions of dollars per year. Why? Because the whole point of global warming alarmism is to persuade voters to cede more control over Western economies to government. (No one actually cares about CO2 emissions from India or China, which together vastly exceed ours.)

Dr. Soon has finally responded.

In recent weeks I have been the target of attacks in the press by various radical environmental and politically motivated groups. This effort should be seen for what it is: a shameless attempt to silence my scientific research and writings, and to make an example out of me as a warning to any other researcher who may dare question in the slightest their fervently held orthodoxy of anthropogenic global warming.

I am saddened and appalled by this effort, not only because of the personal hurt it causes me and my family and friends, but also because of the damage it does to the integrity of the scientific process. I am willing to debate the substance of my research and competing views of climate change with anyone, anytime, anywhere. It is a shame that those who disagree with me resolutely decline all public debate and stoop instead to underhanded and unscientific ad hominem tactics.

Let me be clear. I have never been motivated by financial gain to write any scientific paper, nor have I ever hidden grants or any other alleged conflict of interest. I have been a solar and stellar physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics for a quarter of a century, during which time I have published numerous peer-reviewed, scholarly articles. The fact that my research has been supported in part by donations to the Smithsonian Institution from many sources, including some energy producers, has long been a matter of public record. In submitting my academic writings I have always complied with what I understood to be disclosure practices in my field generally, consistent with the level of disclosure made by many of my Smithsonian colleagues.

If the standards for disclosure are to change, then let them change evenly. If a journal that has peer-reviewed and published my work concludes that additional disclosures are appropriate, I am happy to comply. I would ask only that other authors-on all sides of the debate-are also required to make similar disclosures. And I call on the media outlets that have so quickly repeated my attackers’ accusations to similarly look into the motivations of and disclosures that may or may not have been made by their preferred, IPCC-linked scientists.

I regret deeply that the attacks on me now appear to have spilled over onto other scientists who have dared to question the degree to which human activities might be causing dangerous global warming, a topic that ought rightly be the subject of rigorous open debate, not personal attack. I similarly regret the terrible message this pillorying sends young researchers about the costs of questioning widely accepted “truths.”

Finally, I thank all my many colleagues and friends who have bravely objected to this smear campaign on my behalf and I challenge all parties involved to focus on real scientific issues for the betterment of humanity.

Dr. Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon

Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/02/the-smearing-of-willie-soon.php <<< some excellent links in the article.

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites

You will notice that the Smear-oids never address the extensive publications of Dr. Soon in mainline peer reviewed scientific journals. All they talk about is how he got some of his funding from companies in the energy business.

Here is a list of some of Soon's publications (I got the bibliography off the web).

Soon, W.H. E.S. Posmentier, and S. L. Baliunas, 1996: Inference of solar irradiance variability from terrestrial temperature changes, 1880–1993: An astrophysical application of the sun‑climate connection, Astrophysical J. 472: 891–902.

Baliunas, S., P. Frick, D. Sokoloff, and W. Soon (alphabetical listing with W. Soon as lead author), 1997: Timescales and trends in the Central England Temperature Data (1659‑1990): A Wavelet Analysis, Geophysical Research Letters24: 1351–1354.

Soon, W.H. S.L. Baliunas, A.B. Robinson, and Z.W. Robinson, 1999: Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, Climate Research 13: 149–164.

Posmentier, E.S., W.H. Soon, and S.L. Baliunas (equal contribution by Posmentier and Soon), 2000: Natural variability in an-ocean-atmosphere climate model, Journal of Physics Malaysia 19: 157.

Soon, W.H. S.L. Baliunas, E.S. Posmentier, and P.N. Okeke, 2000: Variations of solar coronal hole area and terrestrial lower tropospheric air temperature from 1979 to Mid‑1998, New Astronomy 4: 563–579.

Soon, W.H., E.S. Posmentier, and S.L. Baliunas, 2000: Climate hypersensitivity to solar forcing? Annales Geophysicae,18: 583–588.

Soon, W., S. Baliunas, K.S. Demirchan, S.B. Idso, K. Ya. Kondratyev, and E.S.

Posmentier, 2001: The impact of anthropogenic CO2 emission on climate: Unresolved problems (in Russian),Proceedings of the Russian Geographical Society 133 (1).

Soon, W., S. Baliunas, S.B. Idso, K. Ya. Kondratyev, and E.S. Posmentier, 2001: Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic CO2 emissions: Unknowns and un‑ certainties, Climate Research 18: 259–275.

Soon, W., S. Baliunas, S.B. Idso, K. Ya. Kondratyev, and E.S. Posmentier, 2002: Reply to comments on “Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic CO2 emissions: unknowns and uncertainties” by James Risbey, Climate Research22: 187–188.

Soon, W. and S. Baliunas, Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the last 1000 Years, 2003: Climate Research23: 89–110.

Soon, W., S. Baliunas, S.B. Idso, K. Ya. Kondratyev, and E.S. Posmentier, 2003: Reply to comments on “Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic CO2 emissions: unknowns and uncertainties” by D.J. Karoly, J.F.B. Mitchell, M. Allen, G. Hegerl, J. Marengo, and F. Zwiers, Climate Research 24: 93–94.

Soon, W. and S. Baliunas, Annual progress report on global warming: 2001–2002, 2003: Progress in Physical Geography 27: 448–455.

Soon, W., S. Baliunas, C. Idso, S. Idso, and D.R. Legates, 2003: Reconstructing climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 Years: a reappraisal, Energy & Environment 14: 233–296.

Soon, W., S. Baliunas, and D.R. Legates, 2003: Comment on “On past temperature and anomalous late‑20th Century warmth” by Mann et al., Eos 84 (44): 473.

Soon, W., D.R. Legates, and S. Baliunas, 2004: Estimation and representation of long‑term (> 40 years) trends of northern-hemisphere-gridded surface temperature: a note of caution, Geophysical Research Letters 31:doi:10.1029/2003GL019141.

Soon, W., 2005: Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record of the past 130 years, Geophysical Research Letters 32: doi.10.1029/2005GL023429.

Dyck, M., W. Soon (as co-first authors), et al., 2007: Polar Bears of Western Hudson Bay and climate change: warming spring air temperatures as the “ultimate” survival control factor? Ecological Complexit, 4: 73–84.

Soon, W., 2007: Implications of the secondary role of carbon dioxide and methane forcing in climate change: Past, present, and future, Physical Geography 28: 97–125.

Armstrong, J.S., K.C. Green, and W. Soon, 2008: Polar bear population forecasts: A public-policy forecasting audit,Interfaces 38: 382–405 [plus 3 comments and authors’ reply].

Dyck, M., W. Soon, et al., 2008: Reply to response to Dyck et al. (2007) on polar bears and climate change in western Hudson Bay by Stirling et al. (2008), Ecological Complexity 5: 289–302.

Liu, J., B. Wang, Q. Ding, X. Kuang, W. Soon, and E. Zorita, 2009: Centennial variations of global monsoon precipitation in the last millennium: Results from ECHO‑G model, Journal of Climate 22: 2356–2370.

Soon, W., 2009: Solar Arctic-mediated climate variation on multidecadal to centennial timescales: Empirical evidence, mechanistic explanation, and testable consequences, Physical Geography 30: 144–184.

Green, K.C., J.S. Armstrong, and W. Soon, 2009: Validity of climate change forecasting for public policy decision making, International Journal of Forecasting 25: 826–832.

Soon, W., 2009: Comments on HESS Opinion “A random walk on water” by D. Koutsoyiannis, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions 6: C2852–C2856.

Soon, W. and D.R. Legates, 2010: Avoiding carbon myopia: Three considerations for policy makers concerning manmade carbon dioxide, Ecology Law Currents 37: 1–9.

Armstrong, J.S., K.C. Green, and W. Soon, 2011: Research on forecasting for the manmade global warming alarm,Energy & Environment 22: 1091–1104.

Agnihotri, R., K. Dutta, and W. Soon, 2011. Temporal derivative of total solar irradiance and anomalous Indian summer monsoon: an empirical evidence for a Sun-climate connection, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 73: 1980–1987.

Soon, W., K. Dutta, D.R. Legates, V. Velasco, and W. Zhang, 2011: Variation in surface air temperature of China during the 20th century, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 73: 2331–2344.

Legates, D.R. and W. Soon, 2011: Chapter 4: Sea level changes in Bangladesh: observational constraints on human, geologic and weather-climate variability related factors, in Climate Change‑ Issues and Perspectives for Bangladesh, Rafique Ahmed, and S. Dara Shamsuddin (Eds). Dhakar, Bangladesh.

Legates, D.R., W. Soon, and W.M. Briggs, 2013: Learning and teaching climate science: The perils of consensus knowledge using agnotology, Science and Education 22: 2007–2017.

Legates, D.R., W. Soon, W.M. Briggs, and C. Monckton of Brenchley, 2013: Climate consensus and ‘misinformation’: A rejoinder to ‘Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change,’ Science and Education (August).

Soon, W. and D.R. Legates, 2013: Solar irradiance modulation of equator-to-pole (Arctic) temperature gradients: empirical evidence for climate variation on multi-decadal timescales, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 93: 45–56.

Legates, D.R., W. Soon, W.M. Briggs, and C. Monckton of Brenchley, 2015: Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model, Science Bulletin, Vol. 60 Issue (1): 122-135; DOI: 10.1007/s11434-014-0699-2.

Notice that the journals in which he published are main line peer reviewed journals. Soon's findings might be mistaken but they are genuine science and the articles were vetted by individuals expert in the field.

I have yet to see a place where Dr. Soon's findings are attacked and criticized in detail. All I see is lip flapping and arm waving about where he got some of his funds.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Behind the scam?

Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of UNFCCC, warns that the fight against climate change is a process and that the necessary transformation of the world economy will not be decided at one conference or in one agreement.

"This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history", Ms Figueres stated at a press conference in Brussels.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 - you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation."

This is not her first clear statement. Four years ago in Madrid, she said,

Ladies and gentlemen, this should be a wake-up call to the world! For if we do not manage to constrain carbon to the recommended level, we will collectively lose the ability to turn the mitigation key and miss the opportunity to put the world on a pathway that does not hold a large potential for conflict.

It is critical that the Cancun Agreements are speedily built upon and that every opportunity is used by all sectors of economies to implement the agreements. Cancun provided a clear policy direction towards global low-carbon economic growth, which primarily means low-carbon energy. Although they come from different directions, this is where the international response to climate change and national defence policies mesh together, because the world desperately needs a new model of human development that is sustainable and stable - a model that breeds peace, not war. http://unfccc.int/files/press/statements/application/pdf/speech_seguridad_20110215.pdf

The nice part is that they have it all figured out:

...Or to increase a preventive military budget investing into adaptation and low-carbon growth and avoid the climate chaos that would demand a defence response that makes even today’s spending burden look light?

Even under current trends, the rate of defence spending growth could account for a major part of the money needed to cut global emissions and to help the vulnerable, often in the most unstable areas of the world, to protect their societies from crumbling under climate pressures.
I am encouraged that defence establishments worldwide - from the United States to China, from Europe to India - are now very much awake both to the strategic implications of climate change for future military readiness and to the crippling cost to themselves of continued reliance on fossil fuels.
The Pentagon estimates that it costs at least $400 to put one gallon of fuel into combat vehicles and aircraft in Afghanistan. Protecting fuel routes from attack is also one of the major causes of US casualties there.

Still not clear?

Ottman Edenhofer, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottmar_Edenhofer, let the pussy out of the marxist bag when he panted:

But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

Yep, green is the new red...

A...

Well Ottmar Edenhofer,

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2015/03/un-climate-chief-admits-goal-is.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, guys. There IS global warming happening. The climate has warmed up since 1750 c.e. when the Little Ice Age ended. Prior to the Little Ice Age starting (circa 1300 c.e) there medieval warming period happened. During that time there was very clement weather in Europe. It was so nice, they even grew grapes in England.

Now we are in another warming period. There is no doubt of it. Glaciers are melting for example.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850

The question is not whether there is warming but the causes. There are cyclical natural processes taking place which drive temperature variations. Among them variance of solar radiation. When the world went through the Little Ice Age sunspot activity decreased indicating a drop in solar radiation See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

it is simply not true that warming is a scam. It is a measured and observed fact (see the photos of the melting glaciers). The issue is whether the warming is caused by human activity (primarily) or is the result of natural processes. The folks at the IPCC want to blame the entire thing on human generated CO2. They have not made their case.

What is likely to happen is that warming will continue until enough fresh water melts into the Atlantic to cut down on the thermohalocine conveyor system which carries warm water (the Gult Stream) up North and keeps England and Northwest Europe cozy warm. Once that conveyor stops they will have extremely cold winters in British Isles and in Northwest Europe. Who knows? Maybe once again the Thames River will freeze over in winter as it did during the Little Ice Age.

If past climate cycles are any guide to future cycles sooner or later we will be headed into an extended cooling period, so the human race had better have contingency plans and preparations for this. The nice interglacial climate we have enjoyed for the past 10,000 years or so will end and we will have to deal with it. The coming Cold Spell will not mean our extinction but it will mean some discomfort for temperate zone folk. Our summer will be shorter and we will have to develop crops with short growing season to make sure our food supply does not falter.

Once more. The current warming trend IS real. It most likely has natural drivers which have been determining climate on this planet since God invented dirt. it is not a scam. What may be a scam is the scare that it is humans who are THE cause of the warming. It just ain't so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob, Bob. We know, we know.

--Brant

but thanks for all the detailed info

Then why the word "scam"?????? If an actual condition is dismissed as being a lie, then we will not prepare ourselves adequately for the climate changes that are bound to come, driven by natural processes. Will the Objectivists of the future deny a coming Ice Age even as glaciers loom on the horizon?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob, Bob. We know, we know.

--Brant

but thanks for all the detailed info

Then why the word "scam"?????? If an actual condition is dismissed as being a lie, then we will not prepare ourselves adequately for the climate changes that are bound to come, driven by natural processes. Will the Objectivists of the future deny a coming Ice Age even as glaciers loom on the horizon?

"Scam" refers to the politicalized "science" of AGW, not the inevitable climate changing over time. These fraudsters dropped AGW and switched to CC as a defensible position akin to the position that water is wet. As for the rest, the future will have to take care of itself as there is no known way to stop global cooling. Consider Yellowstone blowing up. It's due to. Every 600,000 years it goes "blooey!" What's to be done? Damned if I know.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now