In 2006 Exxon said that they would no longer fund organizations like the Competitive Enterprise Institute that misrepresent the science of global warming?
Last year we found out that they were still funding the George Marshall Institute and others.
Now Cindy Baxter reports that Exxon's latest Corporate Citizenship report says:
"in 2008 we will discontinue contributions to several public policy interest groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner."
These groups include:
the Capital Research Center, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, Frontiers of Freedom Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute, and the Institute for Energy Research, according to Exxon spokesman Gantt Walton.
Page van der Linden has more comments at Desmogblog.
And I assume the receivers of the annual $4,000,000,000 in pro global warming money have no incentive whatsoever to alter their research for funding...
The pro AGW crowd recieves approximately 50 times the funding of those opposing AGW, and yet with that huge monitary advantage the AGW propoganda has failed to convince most of the world that the sky is falling. Because their argument is weak and irrational, they must begrudge anyone having any money to oppose their stream of lies. The AGW cult is a fascist cult that cannot stand opposition or free speech because their agenda will not survive in the light of day.
If it was really about science, they would welcome skepticism. No scientist worth his salt wants debate to be closed on any issues. True scientists understand that the only worthwhile theories are those that can stand up to everything that is thrown at them. But the warming cult wants all opposition shut down and they make alarmist predictions so that they can get draconian international legislation in place before the world realizes that it is all a big fraud.
Submit now, the lot of you, to the cruel bootheels of our trimphant and fabulously wealthy climatologists, now that Exxon has cried "Uncle" and scurried off to spend their meager earnings in another fashion.
The pro AGW crowd recieves approximately 50 times the funding of those opposing AGW, and yet with that huge monitary advantage the AGW propoganda has failed to convince most of the world that the sky is falling.
you give one group (A) 50 million dollars and a complexe research problem and another group (B) one million and the task to cast doubts about the results of group A. then see what happens.
denialists are NOT excluded from research money! all you needto do, is some useful research. FOR ONCE!
No scientist worth his salt wants debate to be closed on any issues.
that is all so true! scientists really enjoy to argue about 2+2=5 all the time!
The AGW cult is a fascist cult that cannot stand opposition or free speech because their agenda will not survive in the light of day.
thanks a lot for your deatiled knowledge of the IPCC consens process! free speech and opposition were never allowed while the repor was written!
"Submit now, the lot of you, to the cruel bootheels of our trimphant and fabulously wealthy climatologists, "
Truely master - take my money and my freedom or I will be swept under 25 meters of sea level rise next Tuesday through the omnipotence and omniscience of the prophet Hansen. I shudder in fear of the great diety, Ayygeedoubleu.
Sod:
"that is all so true! scientists really enjoy to argue about 2+2=5 all the time!"
Dumb example Sod. No one is arguing that 2+2=5. Do you consider an argument about whether or not Bistlecone tree rings contain any useful climate information as equal to arguing if 2+2=5. Do you consider questioning the magnitude of climate sensitivity as arguing if 2+2=5, when there is no emperical evidence to support the IPCC climate sensitivity number?
"thanks a lot for your deatiled knowledge of the IPCC consens process! free speech and opposition were never allowed while the repor was written!"
Funny, CA has a new section on just how corrupt the IPCC process really is. Of course CA isn't the only place. There are numerous reports of that kind.
The amount of money directed toward Climate research is usually calculated to include all global change research, including NASA's earth observation budget (the dominant component of climate research funding.)
Presuming this is what is meant above by the "pro AGW crowd" (it apparently includes aerospace contractors and such) it is just another indication of reality's liberal bias.
"it is just another indication of reality's liberal bias."
Yes, here is another example of how the money is spent.
"What's going on? NASA solar physicist David Hathaway explains: "Solar minimum has arrived.""
Hathaway made this statement in March of 2006.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/06mar_solarminimum.htm?list8226…
Hathaway is now on his fourth estimate of when solar minimum will arrive. It's more than 2 years after his initial estimate, and it still hasn't arrived. Each time he misses his estimate, he simply pushes it out another 6 months. A very good example of reality's liberal bias.
Then of course there is Michael Mann's famous hockey stick, created with a proxy that contains virtually no temperature information. Another good example of reality's liberal bias. And another good example of why we should only spend money on AGW supporters.
Wow, I had no idea there were all these giant theoretical holes and this is just a big ole conspiracy. Let's all go home and start doing nothing.
Oh, wait....
Tilo,
You forgot how Hansen is falsifying the temperature record and how Mann has buried the non-HS proxies in his backyard. Oh, and the other 1,000 or so scientists who contributed to AR4 WGI are similarly hiding evidence. Science is fascism, yo!
Let's keep the conspiracies straight, young man.
"Let's all go home and start doing nothing."
You would be doing mankind a favor if you did. Nothing more dangerous that the zealot who thinks that he has to save mankind from himself if mankind likes it or not.
" Because their argument is weak and irrational" - Tilo.
Hahahahhaha, that is the funnest thing I have read in a long time, good one!
"Mann has buried the non-HS proxies in his backyard."
Hi Boris. Why won't Mann update his proxies? Why won't Mann deal with the new information about his proxies that Linah Ababneh's doctoral disertation represents.
"Why won't Mann update his proxies"...
Why wont climate skeptics publish? Why Tilo, why. It seems all you guys have is blogs, shame that.
"Why wont climate skeptics publish?"
That's your answer to why Mann won't update his proxies?
I can see that you're a real sincere guy.
Tilo,
I have no idea why Mann hasn't updated the proxies. You are welcome to--as is anyone else. I don't know why Hughes didn't use the update from the dissertation, perhaps you should ask him? Or would a scientific answer derail your grotesque conspiracy theory? I mean, if it really were a conspiracy, wouldn't Hughes quash the dissertation itself, rather than let it see the light of day? Does the nonsense over at Climate Audit even have an internal consistency anymore?
"Mann has buried the non-HS proxies in his backyard."
I'm on a roll tonight Boris. You get two answers for one post.
Mann's proxies were done by other people. But of course that doesn't mean that Mann can't update them, since the locations where they were taken is well known.
Now, getting to Mann's primary proxie, the Graybill bristlecone series; Graybill took 41 samples from Almagre. But he only archived 17 of them. So if you want Mann's buried proxies, you will probably have to go look in Graybill's back yard.
Of course Graybill didn't expect to get temperature data from those Bristlecones. He was interested in proving CO2 fertilazation of the trees. So Mann and Graybill both got what they wanted from the cherry picked series. Graybill pointed at the tree rings and said "see - CO2 feeding". Mann pointed at the same tree rings and said "see - 20th century warming". Ain't science wonderful.
Then Linah Ababneh reproduced the experiment, using many more trees, archiving them all, and sampling both strip bark and non strip bark types. Then she pointed at them and said "see, no temperature data".
Next Tim came along and said, "Hey, we are doing perfect science here. We don't need no stinkin skeptics!".
"I mean, if it really were a conspiracy"
I don't have a conspiracy theory Boris. And you are not going to get yourself off the hook by slinging around the term "conspiracy theorists".
I'm not saying that any of these people are meeting and discussing how they will jointly promote the AGW hoax. What we have is simply people with a common agenda. For example, Linah Ababneh did a nice piece of science. Any fool would know that it would effect Mann's hockey stick. So what happened. The publication of Ababneh's dissertation was delayed. And Ababneh made no reference at all to how her work could seriously effect that of Mann, as well as the rest of the hockey team. Ababneh's University department, who knew about Mann and the controversey, never made a peep - as though hoping that no one would notice Ababneh's research.
Now, did all these people get together and plan this out. No. It's doubtful that any of them talked to each other about it. But the common goal of promoting the AGW agenda meant that they all did what they needed to do without anyone ever saying anything. Having a common agenda is not the same as having a conspiracy. But at times, it can produce the same results.
Now, Steve McKintyre tries to get a hold of Ababneh to talk to her about her work. He doesn't think that she did anything wrong. In fact, he thinks that she did some good science. All he wants to know is what she thinks of the effect of her research on Mann's results. What does Ababneh do? She won't talk to him and she lawyers up. Is that how scientists behave?
"I have no idea why Mann hasn't updated the proxies."
Of course you do Boris. Other people have taken samples. Mann knows what they found. Mann knows that the updates would not show the proxies following recent warming. And if they don't follow recent warming then they also wouldn't follow MWP warming. And his hockey stick would be a joke.
"I don't know why Hughes didn't use the update from the dissertation, perhaps you should ask him?"
He would probably lawyer up and refuse to answer, like Ababneh did.
""Why wont climate skeptics publish?"
That's your answer to why Mann won't update his proxies?
I can see that you're a real sincere guy"
And that's your answer to why you won't publish to a peer review process.
The thing here, and let me spell it out slowly for you, in science, any legitimate research should go through a peer-review process. You can criticize all you want on this blog, but for you to show some sincerity, show us the peer-reviewed science to prove your points.
"The thing here, and let me spell it out slowly for you, in science, any legitimate research should go through a peer-review process."
So why does this blog exist? And why are you posting on it? Does it exist only to allow you guys to puff up your egos by making snarky remarks about skeptics. It certainly looks that way.
"You can criticize all you want on this blog, but for you to show some sincerity, show us the peer-reviewed science to prove your points."
Why do I need peer reviewed science to ask why Mann didn't update his data?
but how do the grant agencies know a priori that your research is going to "prove" global warming? is there a secret code word you have to use? or do you just come out and say "i intend to demonstrate the existence of global warming with blah blah"? also, nobody's explained to me yet how the money all these people are making selling carbon credits and such gets somehow funneled to noaa to fund grants for AGw researchers. i need to know this so i can be fabulously wealthy and famous as well.
Short Tilo Reber: Clinton Did It Too!!!!!!!!! Just remember the above sentence, and you'll see it's an accurate summary of each and every one of Tilo Reber's posts. Anyway, Paulidan and Tilo, it'll also be a good idea if you can get your conspiracy theories straight...
Anyway, the question now is this: which inactivist groups _are_ ExxonMobil still funding?
z:
"but how do the grant agencies know a priori that your research is going to "prove" global warming?"
Your answer is very simple z. Nobody does just one piece of research. When you do your second piece, or after you publish your doctoral dissertation, your leanings are known. When you do your first piece, you know that your leanings are going to be known.
"also, nobody's explained to me yet how the money all these people are making selling carbon credits and such gets somehow funneled to noaa to fund grants for AGw researchers."
Again, it's a mutual admiration society. Governments want the money they can get from taxing carbon. They will give grants to people who justify their taxation. There is no direct funneling involved. Governments also want power. They will give grants to people that allow them to justify grabing more power. Any alarmist situation will serve that purpose. Leftists want a socialized society. AGW gives them an excuse to increase the socialization of society by removing power from the private sector and transfering it to government. No one needs to spell this out to anyone. Everyone can figure out for themselves how AGW will meet their agenda and they will do what they need to further that agenda. I'm sure that there are a fair number of leftists here that are fighting the AGW fight knowing intrinsically how it will help their cause. They don't get paid. They don't conspire with others. They just do it. The motive isn't always exactly the same for everyone. But that doesn't matter. A person can be both a leftist and an AGW researcher. He get's the double bonus. Al Gore is power hungry, money hungry, and has possibly even deluded himself that he is helping mankind. He get's a triple bonus. James Hansen is one of the worlds biggest egomaniacs, and he loves all the attention that he gets when he goes in front of goverment committees to talk about "death trains", "25 meters of sea level rise", how the oppostion is trying to shut him up, etc, etc. I can only think that a person has to be blind not to see all the motives for propogating the hoax.
> Nobody does just one piece of research. When you do your second piece, or after you publish your doctoral dissertation, your leanings are known.
Tilo Reber, if you'd actually even _tried_ obtaining significant research results that pass muster with the international community, you'd have realized how stupid this statement is.
By the way, what's the latest version of the conspiracy theory anyway? I forgot.
Via comments on DeSmogBlog: Milloy's at it again:
> The Free Enterprise Action Fund, which controls $11m (£5.5m) of assets, has proposed amending Exxon's articles of association to prevent the oil company's shareholders from putting forward advisory resolutions at annual meetings.
> The fund's managing partner, Steven Milloy, opposes a coalition led by the Rockefeller family that is calling on Exxon to pay more attention to global warming. "They're not bona fide shareholders," Milloy says. "They're not shareholders who are invested in Exxon because they think it's a good investment - they're shareholders who want to use Exxon to advance their social and political agenda."
"So why does this blog exist? And why are you posting on it? Does it exist only to allow you guys to puff up your egos by making snarky remarks about skeptics? It certainly looks that way."
I am not claiming that I am making any scientific research on a blog, I just claim that the scientific peer review process is robust and if you have any evidence to counter anthropogenic climate change, then go through the peer review process. It is the scientific way, buddy.
Why do I need peer reviewed science to ask why Mann didn't update his data? "
Sure you can ask questions, that is also the scientific way, but don't claim that the scientific PEER REVIEW evidence is wrong without providing any peer reviewed evidence, or better yet, take your evidence and get it peer reviewed.
Why can't you answer the peer review question? What do you have against this process? Is it that you know you are wrong, but get enjoyment out of being a troll?
It certainly looks like you have no evidence.
As a public service observation:
26 posts so far in this thread
11 by Tilo Reber
9 (approx) by people replying to Tilo, of which none seem to relate very much to the original topic.
Given that ExxonMobil is so rich, it's surprising that it can't fund any solid, rigorous climate research of its own.
Instead, it prefers to fund idiotic PR flacks like the Heritage Foundation, the AEI, etc. and then get the trolls to compare themselves to Galileo.
"Given that ExxonMobil is so rich, it's surprising that it can't fund any solid, rigorous climate research of its own."
That is because, if it did, the outcome would be the same as all the other peer-reviewed evidence - anthropogenic climate change is real!
Tilo, [you now have your own thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/05/the_tilo_reber_thread.php).
Please post all your comments to that thread.
Tushara:
All thanks to that Vast Worldwide Left-Wing Conspiracy known as Reality Itself.
Again, which groups are ExxonMobil _still_ funding, even after all this?
"Tilo Reber": Begone, foul troll.
Tushara says.....
"Why wont climate skeptics publish? Why Tilo, why. It seems all you guys have is blogs, shame that."
http://www.goldenageproject.org.uk/downloads/ScientificPaperCO2.pdf
http://www.goldenageproject.org.uk/downloads/ScientificPaperCO2.pdf
nice one. called on denialists not publishing paper, he quotes a non-peer reviewed paper. funny.
very nice links on your "source, betula:
http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?f=160&t=33736
http://www.larouchepub.com/
One step forward, one step back:
> Rex Tillerson's grip on the dual titles of Exxon Mobil Corp. chairman and chief executive is safe despite a well-publicized push to divide the jobs by descendants of 19th-century oil magnate John D. Rockefeller. [...]
> Steven Milloy, managing partner of the Free Enterprise Action Fund, presented a proposal to block nonbinding proposals -- such as the one backed by the Rockefellers. It also was rejected, as were 15 other shareholder proposals. [...]
> He [Tillerson] said the company is investing in what he termed significant research into breakthroughs that increase efficiency in fossil fuels, create more advanced engines and cut emissions.
> Tillerson added that the company's commitment to research may not be obvious because Exxon Mobil doesn't reveal what it is doing until something is solid.
Ponies. It's always ponies. And fluff.
Talk about conspiracy theories and Betula helpfully points to a Larouche publication. You can't parody self-parody.
Sod.
"he quotes a non-peer reviewed paper. funny."
Peer reviewed? No. A Peer Review? Yes.
We like peer reviewed papers, just not peer reviews.
Boris.
Larouche ran for President 7 times as a candidate for the Democratic Party nomination.......he's right up your alley.
And what does that have to do with Jaworowski's credentials or message. It's another opinion.......not welcome in your world.
That's a great paper. I particularly like figure 10, absolutely fantastic.
Regarding Jaworowski's message however, the initial character assasinations and plethora of self-citation is somewhat off-putting. Betula, what's your take on his whole anthropogenic emissions being only 3% of total argument then?
And what does that have to do with Jaworowski's credentials or message. It's another opinion.......not welcome in your world.
the paper is complete rubbish. that it had not to face peer reviewed can be noticed in every single paragraph.
it was jsut the most obvious thing to point out, especially because your reply with this paper, was to the question: "Why wont climate skeptics publish?
(funny, but obviously the question was about reviewed publishing...)
That's a great paper. I particularly like figure 10, absolutely fantastic.
in the usual denialist way, just made up. i am rather looking forward to betula explaining that graph...
"Tushara says.....
"Why wont climate skeptics publish? Why Tilo, why. It seems all you guys have is blogs, shame that."
http://www.goldenageproject.org.uk/downloads/ScientificPaperCO2.pdf"
Well done, I guess you proved your point with your 'peer reviewed paper'...
No wait, you just proved my point
Of course the paper passed peer review, where the reviewers in this case are experts in the field such as Christopher Monckton and Richard Courtney. After all, didn't David Kane also send his papers on Iraq mortality to Michelle Malkin for peer review?
Speaking of LaRouche, if anyone can dig up a copy of The `Greenhouse Effect' Hoax: A World Federalist Plot (from EIR 1989), be sure to let us know. :B
Rex Tillerson shows his true inactivist colours....
The Greenhouse Effect Hoax: A World Federalist Plot:
http://cce.890m.com/?page_id=9
Plus Limbaugh, Dixy Lee Ray, Rogelio Maduro and a cast of crazies!
Speaking of Jaworowski, this is what Hans Oeschger thought of the guy.
http://www.scientificjournals.com/sj/espr/Pdf/aId/7394
cce: thanks, that's fast!
Figure 10 is indeed glorious. Thank you Betula.
Betula posts:
Well, let me tell you why LaRouche publications are considered suspect, Betula, since you don't appear to know.
Lyndon LaRouche, America's would-be Hitler, famously stated that no revolutionary movement would come into being in the United States "unless I brought it into being." He lies constantly, his publications lie constantly, he lives in a world of conspiracy theories so idiotic that only a brainwashed LaRouchie could take them seriously, and when he needs a fact to cite about an issue, he makes it up.
Did I mention that he lies constantly and that all his publications lie constantly?
Or do you agree with him that the Queen of England sells drugs, Jimmy Carter wanted to start a nuclear war, and Zionists run America?
If you take LaRouche seriously I take it as prima facie evidence that you're an idiot. I don't need to know anything else about you.
"thanks a lot for your deatiled knowledge of the IPCC consens process! free speech and opposition were never allowed while the repor was written!"
Sod, in a sense that is correct- the US, china and Saudi Arabia used their power of veto repeatedly to water down the report, understate the scientific case for AGW and minimise the likely effects.
""Let's all go home and start doing nothing."
You would be doing mankind a favor if you did. Nothing more dangerous that the zealot who thinks that he has to save mankind from himself if mankind likes it or not."
You mean like someone who spend endless hours on the internet ranting about how thousands of scientists and essentially every government on the planet are part of "a fascist cult"?
"Larouche ran for President 7 times as a candidate for the Democratic Party nomination.......he's right up your alley."
Yes and by the same logic David Duke is obviously right up yours.
Ian....
You are correct, it is the same logic....Duke also ran for President under the Democratic ticket.
I don't think Robert Byrd ran for President, but as President pro tempore of the U.S. Senate, he is third in line to be President......just in case you were going to bring him up next.
BPL at #50......
LaRouche wrote that article? Did he also run for President as a Democrat under Jaworowski's name?
"in the usual denialist way, just made up. i am rather looking forward to betula explaining that graph..."
Sod, when you pass away and they count your brain rings, I think they will find them to be awfully close at this stage in your life.
I'm suppose to explain a graph described as "simplistic" by Jaworowski. What am I suppose to explain....that Jaworowski says it's simplistic or it's simplicity?
Considering there are no reliable suface temp records before 1850, there are no accurate records......is that a simple enough explanation?
It's interesting how you are ready to jump at any view that may be skeptical of what you hold dear to your heart.....warming. The problem is, the sacred IPCC report and the messiah contradict each other.....so which one are you skeptical about?
You can pick apart Jaworowski's article for being irresponsible or inaccurate, it's his opinion, but will you denounce any inaccuracies in an Inconvenient Truth? Will the oceans rise 20 feet or, using the IPCC high scenario 10-23 inches?....which is it sod? Pick one. And don't forget, which ever one you choose makes you a skeptic or denier of the other.
And why I'm at it, let me ask you a few other questions....It seems the IPCC can do no wrong, and I constantly hear about the consensus and peer review. Of the 2500 reviewers of the IPCC, are they all peers? What percent are climate scientists and what percent are "other"? Are political appointees considered peers of scientists? After all, it is the Intergovernmental Panel and not the Interscientific Panel......so Sod, please provide me the ratio of climate scientists to "others" regarding IPCC reviewers.
cce posts...
"Speaking of Jaworowski, this is what Hans Oeschger thought of the guy." http://www.scientificjournals.com/sj/espr/Pdf/aId/7394
Imagine that....scientists disagreeing.
Oeschger once said..."The worst for me would be, if there were serious changes in the next 5 to 10 years and we scientists are helpless and did not have the courage to point at these dangerous developments early."
I'm not sure how long ago Oeschger said this, but considering he died in 1998, it's safe to say he was wrong.....at least on that statement.
No, Oeschger was pointing out the incompetent non-science of a buffoon like Jaworowski.
And setting aside the possibility that the Arctic sea ice tipped in 2007, how would the "worst" not coming true make him wrong?
FYI, the IPCC sea level rise figures end in 2100, and exclude dynamic ice flow.
Ah yes. It's all just opinion. And one opinion is pretty much as valid as another right? So what of the CO2 argument in the paper then Betula?
Betula writes:
Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth wrote that the oceans would rise 20 feet if Greenland and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet both melted completely -- which is true. The IPCC wrote that the seas were likely to rise 10-23 inches by the end of this century, although they ignored nonlinear ice sheet dynamics. Two different estimates on two different timescales.
"Al Gore said that apples are red. But the IPCC says oranges are orange. So which is it, sod, red or orange?"
Sod, when you pass away and they count your brain rings, I think they will find them to be awfully close at this stage in your life...I'm suppose to explain a graph described as "simplistic" by Jaworowski. What am I suppose to explain....that Jaworowski says it's simplistic or it's simplicity?...Considering there are no reliable suface temp records before 1850, there are no accurate records......is that a simple enough explanation?
why don t you simply start by pointing out a SINGLE source, that supports the claim, that the MWP was globally warmer by 2°C (TWO!!!) over a period of 200 years, than it is at the "spike" that is today?!?
again, a SINGLE (real) source!
Of the 2500 reviewers of the IPCC, are they all peers? What percent are climate scientists and what percent are "other"?
you seriously lack basic understanding of the subject.
an INTERNATIONAL REPORT ON CLIMATE CHANGE actually NEEDS experts in other fields than cliamte science!
it would be BAD, if all of them were climate scientists. the key point is, and that is what the denialists usually ignore, that specialists from other fields limit their influence on parts, that are part of their SUBJECT. and that a significant number of contributors ARE climate scientists.
feel free to check these things on the IPCC..
BPL states..
"Gore in An Inconvenient Truth wrote that the oceans would rise 20 feet if Greenland and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet both melted completely -- which is true. The IPCC wrote that the seas were likely to rise 10-23 inches by the end of this century, although they ignored nonlinear ice sheet dynamics."
Two different time scales? I thought they were both by the end of the century.
And since the IPCC is predicting a 10 to 23 inch rise, does this mean they don't think both ice caps will melt simultaneously and Al Gore is exaggerating... or instilling fear for effect?
And this comment...
"Al Gore said that apples are red. But the IPCC says oranges are orange."
And skeptics say some apples are green and oranges grow better in warm climates......
Sod.
"why don t you simply start by pointing out a SINGLE source, that supports the claim, that the MWP was globally warmer by 2°C (TWO!!!)"
Martinez-Cortizas, A., Pontevedra-Pombal, X., Garcia-Rodeja, E., Novoa-Muñoz, J.C. and Shotyk, W. 1999. Mercury in a Spanish peat bog: Archive of climate change and atmospheric metal deposition. Science 284: 939-942.â¨MWP over 3C warmer than present
Andersson, C., Risebrobakken, B., Jansen, E. and Dahl, S.O. 2003. Late Holocene surface ocean conditions of the Norwegian Sea (Voring Plateau). Paleoceanography 18: 10.1029/2001PA000654
MWP between AD 1200 and 1500 and was as much as 3.3°C warmer than the Current Warm Period
Holmgren, K., Tyson, P.D., Moberg, A. and Svanered, O. 2001. A preliminary 3000-year regional temperature reconstruction for South Africa. South African Journal of Science 97: 49-51.â¨Peak warmth of the Medieval Warm Period was as much as 2.5°C warmer than CWP
Betiu;s, I assume you missed the word "globally" in Sod's post.
"You are correct, it is the same logic....Duke also ran for President under the Democratic ticket."
Yes , 20 years ago. Failing miserably, he switched to the Republican Party.
Sod states....
"you seriously lack basic understanding of the subject."
"an INTERNATIONAL REPORT ON CLIMATE CHANGE actually NEEDS experts in other fields than cliamte science!"
I understand the subject and the process just fine....I think you lack a basic understanding of the question....
Of the 2500 reviewers, both scientific and political, are they all considered peers and what percent are scientific representatives/reviewers and what percent are political representatives/reviewers?
Isn't there some statistical data on this?
I guess it's a question that is not supposed to be asked.
Ian.
"Yes , 20 years ago. Failing miserably, he switched to the Republican Party."
Yes, that's right, the Republican party denounced him......so how is Robert Byrd doing?
"so how is Robert Byrd doing?"
Admitting (for some decades now) that he was very, very wrong in his youth, and compiling an admirable record on voting rights and civil rights legislation.
Lee.
Ah yes, the admirable Robert Byrd....a true symbol of Democratic understanding and tolerance......who filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act for 14 hours and opposed the nominations of the Supreme Court's 2 black Justices.... and who not long ago was refering to "White Niggers".
But he's a Democrat so he is Admirable......so are you Lee.
No, betula. He is a flawed man with some serious errors and ethical wrongs in his life - what part of "very very wrong" did you not understand? - who also has done a lot of really good things, and who has admitted to and attempted to compensate for his errors. He has deserved his criticism, and he has doen good work as well. Duke is continuing his morally wrong work. Your last sentence is egregious poisoning the well, betula.
And Strom Thurmond was a Democrat who filibustered for 24 hours to prevent the Civil Rights act of 1957, fathered an illegitimate black child, and switched to the Republican party. Republicans seemed to like him just fine, given that he served until he was 100.
Speaking of Moberg, what does his reconstruction of global temperatures say? That's what I thought.
A preliminary 3000-year regional temperature reconstruction for South Africa
Betula, what part of GLOBAL do you not understand? south africa temperature is NOT global temperature!
it is actually rather funny to see, how much the 3 papers you cited DISAGREE about the timeframe of the MWP...
the paper about norway seems to place it from 1200 to 1450AD.
The warmest sea-surface temperatures during this period occurred between
800-550 years BP (0 BP=AD 2000).
http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EAE03/05810/EAE03-J-05810.pdf
your original source claims that global temperature was 3°C (THREE!) colder at that time, than it is today...
...your original source claims that global temperature was 3°C (THREE!) colder at that time, than it is today......
sorry, "is today" should read "was during the MWP"...
1. The method used in the Mann Bradley Hughes papers requires that all the proxies end in the same year. There is no point in updating them to current years.
2. The best word on Jaws is from the head Boojum hisself here and here
Eli especially likes the introduction to the last one
Let me see if I have this right, Lee thinks Robert Byrd is admirable and cce uses Strom Thurmond as a comparison to legitimize the admiration for Byrd.
So who's next on the list, the admirable George Wallace? Just kidding, he became a born-again Christian and we know there is nothing admirable about that.
At least it's comforting to know that the two of you can think beyond party lines and confess your admiration for Strom Thurmond.
Hey, i'll admit i'm not a former KKK member or a segragationist, but when do you think we will see some tolerance for someone who is skeptical about the future catastophic affects of AGW?
Again I was just kidding, I realize I have to admit I am very, very wrong and need to compile an admiral record of buying carbon offsets before that will ever happen.
"To receive the first Golden Horseshoe Award, I can think of no more worthy recipient than Zbigniew Jaworowski."
Should he hang it open end up as a symbol of C02 escaping, or open end down as a symbol of trapping C02?
betula asks;
"Let me see if I have this right,"
Simple answer, betula. No, you don't.
"Yes, that's right, the Republican party denounced him.."
And here we see how even on the most trivial of issues the denailists twist and turn, play rhetorical games and shift the goal posts.
Your original point wasn't about Robert Byrd - it was about Lydond LaRouche who you sought to use to condemn the entire American left through guilt by association because he has run wretchedly unsuccessful campaigns in Democratic primaries.
David duke for his part was actually ELECTED to public office as a Republican and ran a close second in several subsequent Republican primaries.
Welcome to the wonderful world of Newsspeak and doublethink.
Win less than 1% of the votes in a Democratic primary = embraced by the Democrats.
Win a Republican primary, serve as a Republican, win hundreds of thousands of votes in subsequent Republican primaries = total rejection by the Republican Party.
Because Bewtaula is Good and he is a Republican therefore Republicans are good. David Dunk is Bad therefore QED he can't be a Republican.
Meanwhile Democrats are the source of all evil in the world and the mere fact that one is a member of such an organisation should automatically disqualify one from running for, much less holding public office.
So Betula, anthropogenic CO2 emissions are unimportant you agree? Because they only constitute 3% of the total land/ocean/atmosphere flux?
Apologies for the various spelling errors in the above. I haven't slept for the past 72 hours.
betula posts:
You thought wrong.
betula writes:
Tolerance for people is fine and dandy. Tolerance for ideas is not. Like it or not, all ideas are not correct. Some of them are downright wrong. I don't want to see tolerance for the idea that the Sun orbits the Earth, or that Hitler was right, or that you can't live a safe life unless you pay $30,000.00 a year for astrological forecasts.
Ian.
"Your original point wasn't about Robert Byrd - it was about Lydond LaRouche".
Actually, my original point was about Jaworowski.....and his views on the IPCC and the reliability of ancient ice core samples.......who, according to this site, is guilty by association.
And unlike some on this site who find Robert Byrd admirable, I do not find David Duke admirable.
And this .....
"Meanwhile Democrats are the source of all evil in the world".
Ummm.... what? Come on Ian, I never said that. We all know it's the Republicans who are the "evil" ones.
I mean seriously, if there is anything i've learned on this blog, it's that the Republicans cause AGW, it's the Republicans who own all the rich "evil" corporations, it's the Republicans who don't care about the poor or the middle class or minorities or women, it's the Republicans who start all the wars, it's only the Republicans who lie and manipulate, it's the Republicans who hate the elderly and children, it's the Republicans who don't care about the sick, it's the Republicans who caused Katrina and destroyed the World Trade Centers, it's the Republicans who planted aids in the black communities, it's the Republicans who control the "vast right wing conspiracy", it's the Republicans who are the imperialists and oppressors, it's the Republicans who stole the election, it's the Republicans who are the "culture of corruption", it's the Republicans who hate the troops, it's the Republicans who contol oil prices and it's the Republicans who are the real terrorists.
So give me a break Ian..... I'm with you on this.
"So Betula, anthropogenic CO2 emissions are unimportant you agree?"
Let's just say I don't think we will all be cannibals in 30 years and that writing on both sides of a sheet of paper will save a Polar Bear.
BPL at # 82.
What does any of that have to do with being skeptical about the extent of future catastrophes?
I realize you write science fiction.... but perhaps you are starting to live it.
OK, see Boojums for Jaws.
Betula writes:
Global warming denialism falls into the same category as creationism or a belief in ancient astronauts or UFO abductions -- they are ideas that don't pass elementary tests and therefore do not deserve any consideration. You were pissing and moaning about how denier arguments don't get any respect. I was attempting to explain why. People are to be respected, arguments are not. Arguments have to earn respect.
See above. I'm not the one embracing crackpot ideas about science.
Re: Let's just say I don't think we will all be cannibals in 30 years and that writing on both sides of a sheet of paper will save a Polar Bear.
I was rather more interested in whether you agreed with the author of the paper you linked to that anthropogenic CO2 emissions were not important, and that you thought the reason for their unimportance was to be found by looking at the total land/ocean/atmosphere flux. You don't think this then?
BPL.
Once again....what question are you reading?
Because someone is skeptical about the extent of future catastrophes they are a denier. A denier of what? A denier of future events that haven't happened yet? A denier of what you percieve the future to be?
BPL...you truly are living science fiction, you can guarantee the future.......
http://faultgame.com/images/twilight.wav
Eli.
You may have inadvertently stumbled onto something. Are you familiar with the Boojum tree?
It does well in drought like conditions and the Seri people claimed if you touch it, strong winds will blow.
If we strategically plant this tree around the dry areas of the world......we can control the climate with a simple touch of the hand........AGW problem solved.
BPL.....are you getting this for a story line?
jodyaberdein.
I don't think I believe 100 percent of anything I read that involves politics, interpretations, opinions, a variety of expertise, speculations, money and future outcomes....at least I try not to .......unlike some on this site who will believe everything Gore or the IPCC says without question......remember, the debate is over.
The fact is, there are qualified scientists and government officials who have different opinions regarding data and consequences.They can agree on many points and disagree on others.
I have found in life, that there are usually 2 extreme sides (like in politics) and the truth usually lies in the middle........if I were to critisize the extreme right, does that make me extreme left? If I were to criticize the extreme left, does that make me extreme right?
It seems that on this site, any skeptical view or critisism of AGW extemism will put me on the extreme denialist list.
So be it.
As far as C02 emissions not being important.....I don't believe to the extent that they can only wreak havoc and devastation.....I won't jump on that bandwagon.
I know that C02 is important when pumped into greenhouses to increase plant growth, I know that C02 is important when pumped into aquariums for growth of aquarium plants and I know that C02 is important for our respiratory,immune and nervous systems..........so yes, I do think C02 is important.
Of course, I also realize, that any possible C02 fertilization effect can only be bad....only evil plants that will cause problems will benefit.....all other plants will die.
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/printDS/131347
Betula - the Poison Ivy - CO2 paper is a specific instance of a more general issue.
Plants don't respond equally to CO2 - some don't show any effect to CO2, some a little, some more, or many plants there is a temp dependence that offsets CO2 effects, ands so on. Many of the plants that show strong positive growth effects from CO2 are plants that are problems for us - noxious weeds, agricultural pest plants, etc. Therea re strogn agricultural costs associated with CO2 fertilization, as well as positives.
In addition, CO2 fertilization in general enhances carbon fixation - in plants where it does so - to the detriment of nitrogen incorporation. That is, plants that grow larger due to CO2 have lower protein levels - they are less nutritious.
Outside of agriculture, in ecosystems, the differential effects of CO2 means that there will be large shifts in species composition and trophic interactions, leading to rapic changes and probably simplification of ecosystems upon which we are dependent for essential ecosystem services.
In the oceans, rapid CO2-induced changes in pH are also a major issue, one where the science is still very young - but it looks to be a serious problem.
And all of this further impacted by rapid temperature changes, as well.
I know that "CO2 fertilization" is the denialist talking point du jour, but please step outside that gross oversimplification and look at the real world effects, before you try to imply that increased CO2 is such a good thing.
So what's your best estimate for climate sensitivity then?
Good synopsis of why CO2 isn't gassy goodness for plants.
Again, whack-a-mole-like, for the 1,117th time.
Best,
D
D.
What was that?
The title of the article is "Climate Myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production"
And then in the second paragraph it states.... "it is well established that higher CO2 levels can have a fertilising effect on many plants, boosting growth by as much as a third."
But I thought it was a myth?
And then this....."Predicting the world's overall changes in food production in response to elevated CO2 is virtually impossible"
It's impossible to predict, but we know it's a myth.
CLASSIC!
And then this...."so higher CO2 will not boost the growth of C4 plants."
First of all, C4 plants make up 1 percent of all plants, second of all, higher C02 will boost the growth of C4 plants....
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m326821276q77774/
"before you try to imply that increased CO2 is such a good thing."
I never implied it was such a good thing, I implied it wasn't only a bad thing.
"So what's your best estimate for climate sensitivity then?"
You want me to give an estimate of a hypothetical that is used to speculate on the possibility of worst case scenarios.
Ok. 1.543C
Hey, it's as good as any.
see Betula pretend that estimates of climate sensitivity at3C, -1.5C, +somewhat more than that, derived independently from empirical observations and theoretical foundations, are equivalent to his smart-ass "1.543C" absurdity.
No, Betula, your number pulled out of an ass (presumably yours) is not "as good as any."
Betula:
Not a hypothetical. Something from observed facts.
Not worst case. Average case.
So why is your estimate different than that of the IPCC. Why are they wrong whereas you are more likely to be correct?
Betula, thanks, but the day I need anti-AGW crackpots to give me plot points, I think I'll shoot myself.
Betula posts:
Is the truth midway between Hitler and Raoul Wallenberg? Midway between slaveowners and Abolitionists? Midway between NAMBLA and little boys?
Sometimes one side is just right and the other is just wrong.
"So why is your estimate different than that of the IPCC. Why are they wrong whereas you are more likely to be correct?"
It's in the range of many reports, including the IPCC third assessment.......and I never said they were wrong and I was more likely to be correct.....I said "it's as good as any".
Since you seem so obsessed with proving some point you have stuck in your mind.....why don't you "prove" beyond any reasonable doubt, that is, guarantee that my number is wrong.
If I could get a guaranteed number, I could trade it in for a new number when it is comes out or get my money back.
BPL.
"Betula, thanks, but the day I need anti-AGW crackpots to give me plot points, I think I'll shoot myself."
Does that mean your Pro-AGW?
"Is the truth midway between Hitler and Raoul Wallenberg? Midway between slaveowners and Abolitionists? Midway between NAMBLA and little boys"
That's like saying is the truth between hotter and hottest? Is the truth between delusional and deluded? Is the truth midway between extremists and the extreme? Is the truth midway between BPL and science fiction?
Brilliant.
Chris.
"Not a hypothetical. Something from observed facts."
You observed the future?
"Not worst case. Average case."
So Chris, you taught me that using an air conditioner causes flooding in Bangladesh.
Am I to assume that if I crank it up, the flooding is worse case, and if I lower it, is the flooding is average?
What's the recommended setting based on observed facts?
Betula.
I think you've gotten the wrong end of the stick. I'm not particularly fixated on this issue. It just so happens to be the first relevent factual claim in the paper you linked to earlier in an effort to show us that there is decent peer reviewed science that casts serious doubt on aspects of AGW.
I'm not sure I have to do any proving at all as I've not been making any claims, merely asking you why you believe this paper to be correct and the (shall we say) mainstream opinion to be wrong.
I was under the impression that AR4 had this to say about likely climate sensitivity:
'likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values'
Presumably your 1.54 was a way of saying you agree with the statement above, and by extension you disagree with Jaworowski in his statement that:
'This man-made 3% of CO2 emissions is responsible for a tiny fraction of the total greenhouse effect, probably close to 0.12%. Propositions of changing, or rather destroying, the global energy system because of
this tiny human contribution, in face of the large short-term and long-term natural fluctuations of atmospheric CO2, are utterly irresponsible.'
So Chris, you taught me that using an air conditioner causes flooding in Bangladesh. Am I to assume that if I crank it up, the flooding is worse case, and if I lower it, is the flooding is average?#
i ll repeat myself: Betula IS a strawman.
it s completely useless to argue with him. he will continue to use sources taht make completely false claims. he will continue to insist that he holds a moderate position on the issue of cliamte change. he will continue to "counter" arguments that destroy his claims by strawen.
it is just his way.
Betula:
Stop being a moron.
Stop being a moron.
Why don't you take your own advice?
Shorter "me": CLINTON DID IT TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Longer "me": Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too!
Pavlovian reflex, no doubt.
Shorter "me": CLINTON DID IT TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Longer "me": Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too!
Pavlovian reflex, no doubt.
You went off your meds again, didn't you?
"merely asking you why you believe this paper to be correct and the (shall we say) mainstream opinion to be wrong."
I know this is hard for you to understand, but I can only use engish to explain it........Jaworowski's paper is the opinion of a qualified scientist......because his opinion is different, he's a denialist twit. I never said he was correct or the IPCC was wrong, I never said he was wrong or the IPCC was correct........the future catastrophic events are not fact, they are opinion......if I am skeptical that all Polar Bears are dying and that all C02 is bad and that the evil rich countries need to be held legally liable for the flooding in Bangladesh...that's my opinion....why does that keep you awake at night?
It keeps you awake because you can't grasp how my opinion can be different from yours. What could my opinion be based on that it is different than yours? It just so happens that many people on the IPCC have different opinions.....yes there is a consensus, among scientists and politicians... that is based on different opinions coming together.....or the report would never be finalized. Was there arguing and shifting among the people involved? Was it an easy process? Well Damn all those denialist twits on the IPCC that didn't agree there would be complete world destruction!
And talk about mainstream......do you watch the news? How can I be so naive as to not envision millions being displaced, massive flooding, havoc, death and destruction, most species becoming extint, huge hurricanes, massive tornados, tsunamis and the end of the world as we know it, where we have to feed on our neighbors just to survive......and we only have a short time to act to make the climate consistent.
jodyaderdien, do you argue with everyone who doesn't share your view on everything? Could you have a friend that doesn't share your political views? Does everyone have to agree 100 percent on everything they read? Can you agree partially? Does everyone have to envision the future as you envision it? Is everyone who doesn't share your apocalyptic view a denialist twit? Are all scientists in the world on the IPCC? Do they all share the same opinion as the IPCC? Are all those scientists with other opinions worthless, denialist, flat earth believing,neo-con loving, holocaust denying, right wing, rich, evil, corporate connected, greedy, selfish, lying warmongers?
Of course they are.
Presumably your 1.54 was a way of saying you agree with the statement above, and by extension you disagree with Jaworowski in his statement that:"
No, my 1.54 is a way of saying "it's as good as any".....simply because the numbers are best guess estimates and not facts. Therefore, it's not a fact that Jaworowski is wrong and the IPCC is right and vice versa.
I'm not the one fixated on the IPCC being correct, and all others who may disagree, even on one aspect, regardless of their expertise, are moronic denialist twits.
"Stop being a moron."
Chris, they are basing a best guess estimate of the future temperature on observed facts. The observed facts are then plugged into uncertain models...... you are then taking those best guess estimates as pure fact.
So you believe you are observing the future, when all you are really doing is obseving a guess.
Betula, THIS is why people know you're a denialist twit (or "moron"):
"Chris, they are basing a best guess estimate of the future temperature on observed facts. The observed facts are then plugged into uncertain models...... you are then taking those best guess estimates as pure fact."
The discussion is specifically on the value of climate sensitivity. Climate sensitivity does then give us values for future temps - but if we know the sensitivity directly, we can predict those future temps INDEPENDENTLY of the models.
Estimates of climate sensitivity have been calculated from empirical evidence, COMPLETELY independent of the climate models. Those values are in accord with one another, and with the values derived from the models - and they all cluster at about 3C / 2xCO2 (or equivalent forcing).
You are either ignorant (at this point, willfully ignorant) of the empirical approaches to calculating climate sensitivity, or you are dishonest in denying them and pretending that the only approach is via the models.
Re: 113
Betula,
I'm not sure we're really discussing the same point here. Let me try to be plain.
In a thread about misrepresentation of basic science you present a fairly shoddy parody of a scientific review, published in a non peer reviewed, non ISI listed, politically funded journal.
The paper makes some really quite interesting claims about the basic science of climate change, claims about which you remain quite circumspect.
You do however go on at some length about claims of possible catastrophic climate driven events, albeit that you get the details of those claims reasonably wrong.
You do however seem to have misunderstood the distinction between a question and an argument. What I've been doing back there is called asking questions (#42, #59, #79, #88, #93, #100).
The point of these questions has been to try to get you to form something called an argument.
All the while you have been making various statements. The problem is they don't mesh together, they don't support your conclusion.
What you need is something like:
Climate change is happening and sensitivity is 4.5 degrees.
(presmise)
I Betula have the remote control to the Sun down the back of my sofa, and can turn it down a bit if you like (premise)
Therefore:
The purported catastrophies you alarmists are going on about can all be avoided (conclusion).
You get the idea.
So how do you get from
'nobody knows what the climate sensitivity is, and one opinion is just as good as another' (premise)
all the way down to
'I don't believe that catastrophic climate change will happen' (conclusion).
I'm stuck on this one. I just thought you might have decided the whole CO2 thing wasn't an issue and that's how you got there.
Betula:
Anyone who thinks that climate sensitivity estimates are based on future observations is a moron.