Climate change revisited

Extended discussion forum.

Moderator: Scott Waters

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 583
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » March 28th, 2019, 4:08 pm

Preface: The environmental issue of ‘climate change’ surfaced in the thread by ‘stlouisdude’ that has since been removed from this forum. The IPCC scenario that human are the basic cause for global warming has been championed by the environmental community and most, if not all of the major the mainstream media outlets. There has been virtually no balance in the media coverage of this very important issue showing where many scientists question the scenario advance by the IPCC.

In the ‘stlouisdude’ thread, I posted a message suggesting it was premature to have reached a firm position one way or the other. That is, there was a different side to the issue and that the science is not settled and continues to this day. This post is the first of four that provides some information that relates to the other side of the climate change / global warming debate. I thus will leave it up to each individual to access Google and review the innumerable links that support the IPCC position.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post #1: “stlouisdude” initiated his thread in Dec., 2016 with the following sentence: “I postulate that my path from full blown and unapolegetic supporter of environmentalists to complete disdain for these people is not an uncommon trajectory.” Implied are the values of credibility and trust that the environmentalists violated. Sometime later in that thread, the issue of ‘climate change’ emerged. In reviewing this issue through Google searches, I have tried to learn which organizations and which individuals I consider to be credible and thus whom can be trusted.

Through my searches, I have read the contents of a large number of links that pertain to both sides of the climate change issue. The narratives on both sides are written mostly by individuals other than scientists. So although most narratives contain subjective opinion rather than objective evidence, I did find some links that provide quotes with some from various scientists which are better evidence than second hand opinions and speculation.

Most of the links I came across supported the IPCC position that humans are causing climate change or AGW (anthropogenic global warming). It also seems that a majority of the public and certainly the major media sources accept the IPCC claims as being factual. As a recent example, much of the ‘Green New Deal’ proposed by US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is based on her belief in the IPCC’s AGW scenario as if such were fact.

I therefore focused my searches for links that provide a contrast to the IPCC’s position on climate change. Although I am aware I have only scratched the surface in my Google search, nevertheless, I believe I have found sufficient information that I believe can help others with understanding that there is indeed, a valid position that contrasts to the one championed by the IPCC, its followers, and many major media sources.

In this series of posts, I have copied a modest number of links that pertain to questioning the IPCC position and related matters. In parts #3 and #4, I have produced copies of two of those links which speak for themselves. Where there occurs direct quotes from scientists, such information is far more likely to be credible than the second-hand interpretations and opinions by columnists and others.

In posing questions on Google, I sought information on the IPCC, it origin, its link to the United Nations, on the Heartland Institute, on NOAA, on the NIPCC, and individual scientists such as Dr. Michael Mann, Dr. Timothy Ball, Dr. Fred Singer, Dr. Judith Curry, and others. I also searched Google asking the question about scientists that may have resigned from the IPCC and NIPCC groups. I consider information in which scientists over time have switched their position as being very informative.

I now have a much firmer view of this issue yet am of the opinion that the jury is still out. That is, the science is NOT settled. Only with additional research, and more importantly, what takes place with the earth’s climate in subsequent years will the truth likely be revealed. Those that take the time to examine this issue can thus judge for themselves which organizations and which individuals they believe are the most credible and thus most worthy of trust.

Two last points: In reading information contained in links, one has to be mindful of the bias by individual authors and what constitutes subjective feelings and opinions versus objective evidence. Secondly, skepticism (questioning) and objectivity are the hallmark of good science.

Richard F. Hoyer (Corvallis, Oregon)

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 583
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » March 28th, 2019, 4:11 pm

Post #2 Below are a small number of links I selected for review and considered as being reasonably informative.

News - Climate Scientist Quits IPCC, Blasts Politicized 'Preconceived ...
Top US scientist resigns admitting global warming "a big scam" | PSI Intl

(This is a must read! Physicist Hal Lewis letter of resignation.)

UN IPCC Scientist Blows Whistle on Lies About Climate, Sea Level (Have copied this entry as post #3.)
UN Scientists Who Have Turned on the UN IPCC & Man-Made ... (Have copied this entry as post #4.)

Why the IPCC never writes its own reports – Enthusiasm, Scepticism ...
List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global ...

About the IPCC – Climate Change Reconsidered

(“Though often described by scientists and media as an independent scientific organization, the IPCC is in fact an arm of the United Nations.”)

Scientists: Resignations & withdrawals from the IPCC, HABITAT 21:
[PDF] Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over ... - Amherst College

Four Reasons Alarmists Are Wrong on Climate Change - Master ...
The Real Climate-Change Deniers: Exposing a Mainstream Myth | The ...
What Michael Mann's 'Hockey Stick' Graph Gave to UN Climate Fraud ...

Retired NOAA Scientist Doubles Down on Climate Data Controversy ...
The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare ...
Another Global Warming Study Casts Doubt On Media's Climate ...

Stop the Personal Attacks and Answer the Climate Questions | Watts ...
COLUMN: Michael 'hockey-stick' Mann headed for penalty box ...
Michael E. Mann - Left Exposed
Climate Scientists Are Now Suing Critics Who Challenge 'Settled ...
Update: Tim Ball's Huge Courtroom Win, Now Targets Michael Mann ...

Court Battle: Michael Mann Losing, Gives Tim Ball 'Concessions ...
Breaking: Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael 'hockey stick' Mann ... (View the two graphs by Mann and Ball)
Breaking: Climatologist Dr Tim Ball Wins Epic Libel Court Battle | PSI Intl

Update: libel cases and the 'climate wars' | Climate Etc. (By climate scientist Dr. Judith Curry shows neither Dr. Ball or Dr. Mann are ‘angles’)
Manufacturing consensus: the early history of the IPCC | Climate Etc. (This is another insightful review by Dr. Judith Curry.)

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 583
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » March 28th, 2019, 4:11 pm

Post #3
UN IPCC Scientist Blows Whistle on Lies About Climate, Sea Level
Tuesday, 12 February 2019 (Note: This link is very recent!)

Written by Alex Newman
STOCKHOLM, Sweden — The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) is misleading humanity about climate change and sea levels, a leading expert on sea levels who served on the UN IPCC told The New American. In fact, it is more likely that sea levels will decline, not rise, explained Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, the retired head of the paleogeophysics and geodynamics at Stockholm University. A new solar-driven cooling period is not far off, he said. But when Mörner tried to warn the UN IPCC that it was publishing false information that would inevitably be discredited, they simply ignored him. And so, dismayed, he resigned in disgust and decided to blow the whistle.

Asked if coastal cities such as Miami would be flooding due to sea-level rise caused by alleged man-made global warming, Mörner was unequivocal: “Absolutely not.” “There is no rapid sea-level rise going on today, and there will not be,” he said, citing observable data. “On the contrary, if anything happens, the sea will go down a little.” The widely respected scientist, who has been tracking sea levels in various parts of the globe for some 50 years, blasted those who use incorrect “correction factors” in their data to make it appear that seas are rising worldwide. That is just wrong, he said.

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 583
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » March 28th, 2019, 4:13 pm

Post #4
UN Scientists Who Have Turned on the UN IPCC & Man-Made ... (Note: I could not find a link on Google that indicated any scientists had resigned from the NIPCC organization.)

UN Scientists Who Have Turned on the UN IPCC & Man-Made Climate Fears —
A Climate Depot Flashback Report By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotAugust 21, 2013 9:34 PM
Here is a very small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about the UN’s climate claims and its scientific methods.

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.

UN IPCC Scientist Kenneth P. Green Declares ‘A Death Spiral for Climate Alarmism’ – September 30, 2009 – ‘We can expect climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority’ – Dr. Kenneth Green was a Working Group 1 expert reviewer for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001

‘The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart — Heads will roll!’ -South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander, April 12, 2009 – Professor Alexander, is Emeritus of the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters.

“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

“The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense” – declared IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New Zealand in 2007. Gray was an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990, author of more than 100 scientific publications. (LINK) & (LINK)

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

UN IPCC Lead Author Tom Tripp Dissents on man-made warming: ‘We’re not scientifically there yet’ – July 16, 2009

The UN IPCC’s Kevin Trenberth’s claim that the UN IPCC is an “very open” also needs examining. The IPCC summary for policymakers is used to scare politicians and goad the public into action. The UN is all about politics.

UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland declared “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s alleged global warming “consensus,” according to a May 10, 2007 article. Sounds scientific, doesn’t it?

Dr. John Brignell, a UK Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton who held the Chair in Industrial Instrumentation at Southampton, accused the UN of “censorship” on July 23, 2008. “Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution. Through the power of patronage it rapidly attracted acolytes. Peer review soon rapidly evolved from the old style refereeing to a much more sinister imposition of The Censorship. As Wegman demonstrated, new circles of like-minded propagandists formed, acting as judge and jury for each other. Above all, they acted in concert to keep out alien and hostile opinion. ‘Peer review’ developed into a mantra that was picked up by political activists who clearly had no idea of the procedures of science or its learned societies. It became an imprimatur of political acceptability, whose absence was equivalent to placement on the proscribed list,” Brignell wrote.

Research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) McLean’s research revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is “an illusion.” McLean’s study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN’s peer-review process. The report contained devastating revelations to the central IPCC assertion that ‘it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.” The analysis by McLean states: “The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all.” Repeating: Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis.

Here is a small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about the UN IPCC’s “very open” process.

(Below are excerpts from various U.S. Senate reports which Climate Depot’s Morano authored during his years at the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee.)

One former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) committee how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers “distorted” the scientists work. “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” explained South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

In an August 13, 2007 letter, UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Madhav Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada scientist, lashed out at those who “seem to naively believe that the climate change science espoused in the [UN’s] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents represents ‘scientific consensus.’” Khandekar continued: “Nothing could be further than the truth! As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed.” “Unfortunately, the IPCC climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the earth’s temperature trends and associated climate change,” Khandekar concluded.

Paul Reiter, a malaria expert formerly of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, participated in a past UN IPCC process and now calls the concept of consensus on global warming a “sham.” Reiter, a professor of entomology and tropical disease with the Pasteur Institute in Paris, had to threaten legal action to have his name removed from the IPCC. “That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed,” he said on March 5, 2007. “It’s not true,” he added.

Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA’s National Hurricane Center, was both an author a reviewer for the IPCC’s 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but resigned from the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with playing politics with Hurricane science. Landsea wrote a January 17, 2005 public letter detailing his experience with the UN: “I am withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.” “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound,” Landsea added.

In addition, a Greenpeace activist co-authored a key economic report in 2007. Left unreported by most of the media was the fact that Bill Hare, an advisor to Greenpeace, was a lead co- author of a key economic report in the IPCC’s 4th Assessment. Not surprisingly, the Greenpeace co-authored report predicted a gloomy future for our planet unless we follow the UN’s policy prescriptions.

The UN IPCC’s own guidelines explicitly state that the scientific reports have to be “change[d]” to “ensure consistency with” the politically motivated Summary for Policymakers.

In addition, the IPCC more closely resembles a political party’s convention platform battle – not a scientific process. During an IPCC Summary for Policymakers process, political delegates and international bureaucrats squabble over the specific wording of a phrase or assertion.

Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit, one of the individuals responsible for debunking the infamous “Hockey Stick” temperature graph, slammed the IPCC Summary for Policymaker’s process on January 24, 2007.

McIntyre wrote: “So the purpose of the three-month delay between the publication of the (IPCC) Summary for Policy-Makers and the release of the actual WG1 (Working Group 1) is to enable them to make any ‘necessary’ adjustments to the technical report to match the policy summary. Unbelievable. Can you imagine what securities commissions would say if business promoters issued a big promotion and then the promoters made the ‘necessary’ adjustments to the qualifying reports and financial statements so that they matched the promotion. Words fail me.”

Former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. also detailed the corruption of the UN IPCC process on September 1, 2007: “The same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the [IPCC] assessment! There should be an outcry on this obvious conflict of interest, but to date either few recognize this conflict, or see that since the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda, they chose to ignore this conflict. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow,” Pielke explained. He added: “We need recognition among the scientific community, the media, and policymakers that the IPCC process is obviously a real conflict of interest, and this has resulted in a significantly flawed report.”

Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher: “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact.”

User avatar
Scott Waters
Site Admin
Posts: 683
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 3:08 am
Contact:

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Scott Waters » March 29th, 2019, 1:01 am

Richard,

This thread is unlikely to survive, surely you know that already.

Field herping is the topic at hand on this forum, it’s quite literally in the name. Climate change, while a worthy topic to discuss and clearly related to our shared passion for being in the field, is a stretch to debate here on FHF.

The world appears unable to reasonably discuss climate change, but you’re hoping that changes here? Well, me too. How cool would it be to see a lengthy discussion that stays reasonable? Sadly, I’m not hopeful.

This topic will remain active here on the Board Line, for now. Strong debate is encouraged, as always, but a level of decency and staying on topic must be maintained.

Be cool, it’s not that hard.

Good luck.

Scott

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 583
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » March 31st, 2019, 8:47 pm

In the discontinued thread by ‘stlouisdude’ pertaining to environmentalism, the issue of climate change surfaced. There are a good number of scientific papers dealing with amphibians and reptiles which mention global warming potentially having a negative impact on such populations. In that deleted tread, I attempted to alert Herp Nation members that one should examine both sides of the climate change issue before reaching a firm position.

In this thread, I am merely continuing with that topic in an educational context. Hopefully readers will understand that point and possibly educate themselves by reviewing some of the links I have mentioned. In that regard, below are more links that I believe could be reviewed. And there are many more if one has the time to make such searches.

Richard F. Hoyer (Corvallis, Oregon)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

McIntyre's Mission: An Obsessive Quest to Disprove Michael Mann's ...

20 Years Later, The 'Hockey Stick' Graph Behind Waves Of Climate ...

What evidence is there for the hockey stick? - Skeptical Science

Global Warming Bombshell - MIT Technology Review

20 Years of Secret Science: That Infamous 'Hockey Stick' Graph | PSI Intl

Steve McIntyre Misrepresents Climate Research History | ScienceBlogs

Paleoclimate/Hockey Stick - Ross McKitrick

Fake Data—How the Hockey Stick Graph Was Contrived. Read this one

Hockey Stick Studies | Climate Audit

Climate Audit | by Steve McIntyre

“Independent” critique of Hockey Stick revealed as fatally flawed right ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3/29/19 More links when I Googled “Fake Data—How the Hockey Stick Graph Was Contrived.”
Then entered the name of “Steve McIntyre climate” which led to more links by entering “Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climatologist Dr. John Christy rejects premise of ... - Climate Depot
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Santer Climate Study Claim: 97% Consensus is ... - Climate Depot

Suggest entering the names of Ross McKitrick, Climatologist Dr,. Roy Spencer and Friedrick Karl Ewert on Google
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ross McKitrick: All those warming-climate predictions suddenly have a ...

A recent Energy Balance ECS estimate was just published in the Journal of Climate by Nicholas Lewis and Judith Curry

Roy Spencer on the Unsettled Science of Climate Change: A Primer ..

Global Warming: Another Doomsday Climate Model Flunks A Math Test (about Nicholas Lewis)

Jimi
Posts: 1875
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi » April 1st, 2019, 4:59 pm

Kind of like 'cigarettes don't kill people, lies about cigarettes kill people".

Detroit did it with car design and other safety features, Big Tobacco did it with smoking, and now we know that certain US actors in Big Oil did it with climate change - they all lied to protect their profits, and externalize the costs - and they killed a sh!t-ton of people in the process:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... years-ago/
‘Victory will be achieved when the average person is uncertain about climate science.’

In a probably vain hope to reverse some of the spurious uncertainty, here's a table listing and unpacking most of the familiar fallacious climate change arguments:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 5QKgbLpz0g


You don't like the hockey stick? Though it's important to note it's accompanied by many, many other lines of evidence (and thus its importance should not be overstated) - inconveniently, it got about 5x longer:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/3 ... 8.abstract


Finally, the absurdity of the term "settled science" cannot go unremarked. In a word, it's absurd. I prefer "preponderance of evidence". Or "scientific consensus", the term also favored by those whacko morons over at NASA, which in another Division harbors some, uhhh, actual rocket scientists:
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


OK, now finally - Climate Depot? Come now, Richard. Really?!?!?

Thanks Scott

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 485
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by WSTREPS » April 2nd, 2019, 3:12 am

The real evidence regarding the legitimacy of man-made climate change is …….

The undeniable fact that climate scientist have repeatedly been caught lying, have altered data and fudged graphs concerning their research and their findings, This includes those "whacko morons" over at NASA, uh, actual rocket scientists.

NASA Exposed in ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud

https://principia-scientific.org/nasa-e ... ata-fraud/


Ernie Eison

User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3627
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by jonathan » April 2nd, 2019, 11:31 pm

Ernie, Scott has asked that I not bite on your efforts to derail this site, and I agree. So I will debunk the ridiculous claim you just made, so people get an understanding of what level of references you're working with and how poorly you check the veracity of the things you post on this subject. Since you consider this to be you great "gotcha" comment, I think we can safely assume that your follow-ups will be of similar truthfulnees and insight, and I will not respond to anything further whatsoever in this thread.


WSTREPS wrote:
April 2nd, 2019, 3:12 am
The real evidence regarding the legitimacy of man-made climate change is …….

The undeniable fact that climate scientist have repeatedly been caught lying, have altered data and fudged graphs concerning their research and their findings, This includes those "whacko morons" over at NASA, uh, actual rocket scientists.

NASA Exposed in ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud

https://principia-scientific.org/nasa-e ... ata-fraud/


Ernie Eison
Principia-scientific is a science skeptic group so fringe that even other skeptics are having to constantly debunk their false claims and lack of basic scientific understanding. They actually believe that they've published "the world’s first and only detailed refutation of the greenhouse gas effect" and that all other climate skeptics are wrong. They try to run with the idea that carbon dioxide isn't even a greenhouse gas in the first place, something other skeptics have to laugh at and can disprove with the easiest of experiments:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/27/ ... ith-watts/


In fact, Principia-scientific doesn't limit themselves to climate change for ignorance, they also claim that vaccines don't work and wind turbines make people sick.

https://web.archive.org/web/20151022220 ... -over.html
THE VACCINE HOAX IS OVER?
Written by Andrew Baker ( FFN) on 06 Dec 2013

A Freedom of Information Act request in the UK filed by a doctor there has revealed 30 years of secret official documents showing that government experts have:

1. Known the vaccines don’t work
2. Known they cause the diseases they are supposed to prevent
3. Known they are a hazard to children
4. Colluded to lie to the public
5. Worked to prevent safety studies

Those are the same vaccines that are mandated to children in the US.

Educated parents can either get their children out of harm’s way or continue living inside one of the largest most evil lies in history, that vaccines – full of heavy metals, viral diseases, mycoplasma, fecal material, DNA fragments from other species, formaldehyde, polysorbate 80 (a sterilizing agent) – are a miracle of modern medicine.
That should give people a rough idea of the reliability of the information that Principia-scientific publishes.




In terms of the specific post that Ernie made and it's claims, you should have notice from the beginning that the post was made in 2015, repeating a claim the same author had already made in 2012, and yet has been ignored not only by the mainstream scientific community but even by the large majority of the skeptic community. After Heartland gave him a platform in 2015 (Heartland will let anyone speak if he affirms their agendas), you'll see tellingly few references to his study anywhere by established climate skeptics. They could tell it was misguided on its face.

Some obvious basic issues with the claim - NASA didn't even collect most of the data in question and has no monopoly over it. Any of the millions of scientists or hundreds of scientific organizations in the world can look at the same raw data and make their calculations accordingly. The guy who did it in your link is a retired geologist with no previous research in climate change or expertise in the field, he just added up raw data without any apparent knowledge of how that data was to be interpreted (or if he did have said knowledge, he's not sharing it).

The idea that raw data should be examined over time with no corrections is just pure ignorance. Imagine if you were measuring a baby's temperature (something I did about 12 hours ago), and sometimes you used rectal measurements while other times you used under the tongue and other times you used an armpit thermometer. And then imagine that you argued that the "raw data" was the most important and that armpit and tongue and rectal measurements should be compared alike. That would be stupid, right?

Especially if you were looking at historical data of baby temperatures, and everyone in the 1950s was using armpit measurements while everyone in the 1990s was using rectal. You'd conclude that babies got hotter over time! That's what the raw data shows!

Or for an even better example for this forum, imagine if you plotted the number of snakes found by herpers per year, but didn't account for the fact that they were night-driving in some years, had board lines in others, had neither in the beginning, that a study site had been developed over and the snakes relocated, etc.

The lack any such analysis (or even ability to make such an analysis) is why you man's paper is ignored. NO ONE thinks that the raw data over time should be compared like that.

I expect you following posts to be as misguided and untrustworthy as that one and the other comments you've previously made on the subject, and will ignore accordingly.

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 485
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by WSTREPS » April 3rd, 2019, 4:38 am

No matter how desperate someone is to believe. Scientist inserting their own data to support their pre-determined conclusions, cherry picking facts, omitting strong evidence that derails their wants and needs, data dredging etc..... does not equal truth.

Politicians, media and self absorbed career minded scientist are all profiting (Big Time) by crying "wolf" about one ostensibly dire emergency or another. Telling us tales about man-made Global warming and how man produced co2 emissions are a catalyst for climate disaster. The hoaxers yarn about rising sea levels, a baking planet, polar bears with no place live, etc. While others use mendacious climate change to justify spending millions upon millions of taxpayer dollar's, promoting their career's. In the name of saving South Florida from giant snakes that are falsely claimed to be vacuuming up all living things in their path. All working together . Enacting injudicious policies that empower them and increase their spending clout at an exponential rate. They desperately try to shout down any opposition (intelligent enough),to dare to challenge the falsehoods they spread. They do this because when confronted with fact based logic and reason,that critically examines their claims and reported supporting evidence . They cannot produce ANY credible affirmation that any of the HYPED threats are real.
Ernie Eison

Jimi
Posts: 1875
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi » April 3rd, 2019, 10:43 am

Principia-scientific is a science skeptic group so fringe that even other skeptics are having to constantly debunk their false claims and lack of basic scientific understanding.
Best and brightest, of all the best and brightest, man. Ha ha ha.


Educated parents can either get their children out of harm’s way or continue living inside one of the largest most evil lies in history, that vaccines – full of heavy metals, viral diseases, mycoplasma, fecal material, DNA fragments from other species, formaldehyde, polysorbate 80 (a sterilizing agent) – are a miracle of modern medicine.
That's...simply...oh God, that's just amazing stuff. Best of the best. NASA couldn't touch them. Science & Scientific American mags should pucker up and kiss the ring. All hail the mighty Principia-scientific. Say it like it's Italian - "preencheep-ee-uh" - it sounds even classier. Of course it's just lipstick on a pig...talk about evil. Wow.

I wonder - how many dead people would be enough for these lying monsters?

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 485
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by WSTREPS » April 4th, 2019, 3:38 pm

A critical look at disingenuous science finds common patterns of fraudulence that quickly raise red flags once recognized. There are red flags everywhere when you examine the validity of the climate change issue.

(If scientist caught lying and NASA altering data isn't enough)

A sure tell that something is amiss. Is the group effort displayed by Climate change advocates to suppress data and research. Knowing liars are always hyper fearful that both sides will be heard. Consider,

The dismissive contempt Climate change advocates show for those who question the cogency of what they present as evidence. Condescendingly calling scientist and citizens deniers or skeptics. Climate change advocates use sly gamesmanship in claiming that there is irrefutable proof that they are right. That anyone who disagrees is wrong-headed or ignorant of the facts. Climate change advocates use dismissive language and fear mongering as a way to forcibly convince people that there is only one side to the argument (their side), and that all other evidence and views should be ignored. When nothing could be further from the truth.

Ernie Eison

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4319
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Kelly Mc » April 4th, 2019, 5:13 pm

There are "Red Flags Everywhere" with certain personality disorders, too.

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 583
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » April 5th, 2019, 12:12 pm

There does seem to be some ‘Red Flags’ with respect to the United Nation’s IPCC organization and its position on climate change. Below I have copied a number of links adding some comments.

#1 (From Wikipedia) List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global ...
Any claim these scientists are all being influenced by fossil fuel industries would be specious and misleading. RFH
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) (April 1, 2005) News - Climate Scientist Quits IPCC, Blasts Politicized 'Preconceived ...
(April 9, 2014) Climate Professor Quits Biased Global Warming IPCC | PSI Intl
(Tuesday, 12 February 2019) UN IPCC Scientist Blows Whistle on Lies About Climate, Sea Level
The contents of these links speak for themselves. RFH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) UN Scientists Who Have Turned on the UN IPCC & Man-Made By: Marc Morano Climate Depot August 21, 2013

Climate Depot (Marc Morano) is a conservative outlet and thus on the right side of the political spectrum. Mr. Morano makes some comments within this link. But the quotes by scientists likely are accurate in most, if not all instances. What cannot be assessed is the full context in which these quotes were made. Nevertheless, they provide an unmistakable view of the U.N’s IPCC bias and agenda.

One can be confident that any organization on the left of the political spectrum would not compile and publish such a list. In reference to political leaning, if anyone doubts where the United Nations IPCC leadership stands politically, search Google with, ‘UN panel advocating end of capitalism’.

But one needs to be aware that the IPCC position could turn out to be confirmed over time. Only in the coming years will we be able to assess which position likely was mostly correct with respect to the earths climate, the IPCC position of AWG, or the opposing position that what is occurring is a natural phenomena. A third options is that earth’s current climate is a combination of natural and human induced factors (forcing).

Note the date of Aug., 2013. I could not find a link which updates this list. I would not be surprised if more IPCC scientists have quit that organization in the past 5 1/2 years since this list appeared. RFH
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By: Marc Morano Climate Depot Aug. 21, 2013
Here is a very small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about the UN’s climate claims and its scientific methods.
“Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.

UN IPCC Scientist Kenneth P. Green Declares ‘A Death Spiral for Climate Alarmism’ – September 30, 2009 – ‘We can expect climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority’ – Dr. Kenneth Green was a Working Group 1 expert reviewer for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001

‘The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart — Heads will roll!’ -South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander, April 12, 2009 – Professor Alexander, is Emeritus of the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters.

“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

“The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense” – declared IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New Zealand in 2007. Gray was an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990, author of more than 100 scientific publications. (LINK) & (LINK)

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

UN IPCC Lead Author Tom Tripp Dissents on man-made warming: ‘We’re not scientifically there yet’ – July 16, 2009

The UN IPCC’s Kevin Trenberth’s claim that the UN IPCC is an “very open” also needs examining. The IPCC summary for policymakers is used to scare politicians and goad the public into action. The UN is all about politics.

UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland declared “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s alleged global warming “consensus,” according to a May 10, 2007 article. Sounds scientific, doesn’t it?

Dr. John Brignell, a UK Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton who held the Chair in Industrial Instrumentation at Southampton, accused the UN of “censorship” on July 23, 2008. “Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution. Through the power of patronage it rapidly attracted acolytes. Peer review soon rapidly evolved from the old style refereeing to a much more sinister imposition of The Censorship. As Wegman demonstrated, new circles of like-minded propagandists formed, acting as judge and jury for each other. Above all, they acted in concert to keep out alien and hostile opinion. ‘Peer review’ developed into a mantra that was picked up by political activists who clearly had no idea of the procedures of science or its learned societies. It became an imprimatur of political acceptability, whose absence was equivalent to placement on the proscribed list,” Brignell wrote.

Research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) McLean’s research revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is “an illusion.” McLean’s study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN’s peer-review process. The report contained devastating revelations to the central IPCC assertion that ‘it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.” The analysis by McLean states: “The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all.” Repeating: Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis.

Here is a small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about the UN IPCC’s “very open” process.

(Below are excerpts from various U.S. Senate reports which Climate Depot’s Morano authored during his years at the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee.)

One former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) committee how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers “distorted” the scientists work. “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” explained South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

In an August 13, 2007 letter, UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Madhav Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada scientist, lashed out at those who “seem to naively believe that the climate change science espoused in the [UN’s] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents represents ‘scientific consensus.’” Khandekar continued: “Nothing could be further than the truth! As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed.” “Unfortunately, the IPCC climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the earth’s temperature trends and associated climate change,” Khandekar concluded.

Paul Reiter, a malaria expert formerly of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, participated in a past UN IPCC process and now calls the concept of consensus on global warming a “sham.” Reiter, a professor of entomology and tropical disease with the Pasteur Institute in Paris, had to threaten legal action to have his name removed from the IPCC. “That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed,” he said on March 5, 2007. “It’s not true,” he added.

Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA’s National Hurricane Center, was both an author a reviewer for the IPCC’s 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but resigned from the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with playing politics with Hurricane science. Landsea wrote a January 17, 2005 public letter detailing his experience with the UN: “I am withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.” “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound,” Landsea added.

In addition, a Greenpeace activist co-authored a key economic report in 2007. Left unreported by most of the media was the fact that Bill Hare, an advisor to Greenpeace, was a lead co- author of a key economic report in the IPCC’s 4th Assessment. Not surprisingly, the Greenpeace co-authored report predicted a gloomy future for our planet unless we follow the UN’s policy prescriptions.

The UN IPCC’s own guidelines explicitly state that the scientific reports have to be “change[d]” to “ensure consistency with” the politically motivated Summary for Policymakers.

In addition, the IPCC more closely resembles a political party’s convention platform battle – not a scientific process. During an IPCC Summary for Policymakers process, political delegates and international bureaucrats squabble over the specific wording of a phrase or assertion.

Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit, one of the individuals responsible for debunking the infamous “Hockey Stick” temperature graph, slammed the IPCC Summary for Policymaker’s process on January 24, 2007.

McIntyre wrote: “So the purpose of the three-month delay between the publication of the (IPCC) Summary for Policy-Makers and the release of the actual WG1 (Working Group 1) is to enable them to make any ‘necessary’ adjustments to the technical report to match the policy summary. Unbelievable. Can you imagine what securities commissions would say if business promoters issued a big promotion and then the promoters made the ‘necessary’ adjustments to the qualifying reports and financial statements so that they matched the promotion. Words fail me.”

Former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. also detailed the corruption of the UN IPCC process on September 1, 2007: “The same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the [IPCC] assessment! There should be an outcry on this obvious conflict of interest, but to date either few recognize this conflict, or see that since the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda, they chose to ignore this conflict. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow,” Pielke explained. He added: “We need recognition among the scientific community, the media, and policymakers that the IPCC process is obviously a real conflict of interest, and this has resulted in a significantly flawed report.”

Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher: “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rational comments and observations regarding the above contents are welcome as there is the possibility of learning something new. I urge others to refrain from making belittling comments, sarcasm, etc., which could lead this thread to being removed as occurred with another thread.

Richard F. Hoyer (Corvallis, Oregon)

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4319
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Kelly Mc » April 5th, 2019, 1:11 pm

I question the sincerity of Ernies participation in this thread.

I sincerely think it is only an expression of a personality disorder. The other possibility sheer intentional destructiveness

your comment should thusly be directed to your boy, Mr Hoyer, as I am not being sarcastic.

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 583
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » April 5th, 2019, 8:01 pm

On April 1, I found a link that mentioned ‘Russian Climate Models’. Today, I went back and clicked on the first of the two links I had copied. ( “Russian Climate Science – NoTricksZone” )
I then entered ‘No TricksZone’ in Google and came up with large number of links that referenced climate research. Below are just two of the published articles I accessed.

If anyone bothers to review the information in these research articles and doesn’t begin to question the IPCC’s position on AGW, then I suggest you do more searching the scientific literature that does not support the United Nation’s IPCC position. There seems to be a considerable amount of such published scientific research so one does not have to rely on the second hand information contained in various web sites.

Richard F. Hoyer
=========================================================================================

Comparison of Decadal Trends among Total Solar Irradiance Composites of Satellite Observations
Advances in Astronomy Volume 2019, Article ID 1214896, 14 pages https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/1214896

Nicola Scafetta1 and Richard C. Willson2
1Department of Earth Sciences, Environment and Georesources, University of Naples Federico II, Via Cinthia 21, 80126 Naples, Italy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An updated review about carbon dioxide and climate change ... https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 018-7438-y

by RJ Fleming – ‎2018 (If one accesses this link, you can read the author’s abstract and a large list of references that pertain to his research.).

Jimi
Posts: 1875
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi » April 6th, 2019, 11:40 am

Richard, two of the arguments you apparently subscribe to (I infer this based on stuff you link), based on 1) the "missing" warm layer in the atmosphere and 2) the current declining limb of the solar (TSI) cycle, are discussed in the table I linked earlier. And do so again here for convenience (see section 3, "It's Not Us"

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 5QKgbLpz0g

Here are the arguments as posed in the table; see the logical deconstruction and the conclusions for yourself:
One fingerprint of human caused global warming is the tropospheric hot spot which hasn't been observed, thus disproving human caused global warming.
The sun is causing currently observed climate change on Earth.
(EE doesn't get a response or reaction. We all know he's a bad-faith actor. It's just foolish to engage those people earnestly.)

As for some of your other links and quotes - don't you find it curious that most of that stuff either ends around 2009, or if published more recently, cites mostly old work, or in the case of Ferguson, mostly cites his own work?

Also - how many of the people who were yelling in 2007/8/9 that "look - it isn't happening like we (or they) thought!" are still saying that in 2019? Have you tried looking up some of those folks from that era, who are now saying differently? They do exist, you know...honest people can admit when they've changed their minds, based on new or additional evidence.

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 485
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by WSTREPS » April 6th, 2019, 3:04 pm

Human-driven climate change agitprop offers plenty of bluster, but despite the massive media coverage that only the Pro-"evidence"? receives (a sign of scientific misbehavior), there is no bona fide scientific proof to support the hype of cataclysmic environmental impacts. There is only evidence against. The group effort displayed by Climate change advocates to suppress data and research that contradicts the narrative that climate change is driven by humans. Speaks volumes to the fact that human driven climate change is to be questioned by all.

Ernie Eison

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 485
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by WSTREPS » April 7th, 2019, 11:15 am

What has been and is currently taking place is dissembling scientist are creating a fictionalized representation of real life. Even when caught refashioning the truth. Protected by a flood of spin doctoring. With the main stream media always at the ready to ameliorate any situation, regardless of how egregious. Knowing scientist whose careers depend on the acquisition of grant money. Are making sure they provide their benefactors (who are profiting greatly from the spread of lies.) Enough high-sounding language to make any uncertain or non threatening scenario appear catastrophic. In order to keep the ball rolling. It is critical to manufacture a false image in the public mind that is straight out of an apocalyptic SCI FI movie.


Ernie Eison

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 583
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » April 7th, 2019, 2:08 pm

Jimi,
It is clear to me there exists a genuine disagreement between many scientists with respect to the issues of global warming and climate change. If anyone does not see it that way and has already adopted a position, that’s fine.

However from my vantage point, I consider that adopting either position as being premature. I do not consider the ‘science to be settled’. So that is why in previous posts I have encouraged everyone to examine all sides of the climate change issue. In other words, I believe the ‘jury is still out’ so to speak.

Contrary to your assertion, I have not ascribed to the “arguments” you mention. I have merely identified links / research that are not in line with the IPCC position on climate change. As for the link to the table you posted, when I access that table, even with a hand lens I am not able make out the tiny print and do not know how to enlarge the print if there is such an available option.

As for your comment about E. E., I do not agree with some of his positions nor do I disagree with all of his positions. Likewise, I do not agree with, nor disagree with all of Jonathan’s, Bryan’s, or your positions on these issues.

As for your comment about links and quotes (references), I have noted that links on both sides of the issue are often dated. As such, I have recently found a number of links to more current research or reviews thereof. One such link was the research by a Dr. Fleming. If you have searched as much as I have, you come away with understanding just how unending is the amount of information that is available.

Where you mention “----or in the case of Ferguson, mostly cites his own work?”, the name of Ferguson is not familiar to me. Consequently, I am not able to review where in some published research, Ferguson ‘mostly cites his own work’. However, scientists often cite their one related research. That is a very common practices so do not understand why you consider such to be a negative.

As for your last paragraph, I have mentioned I was not able to find a link that shows where ‘global warming doubters (i.e. NIPCC individuals) have now switched their position and are now IPCC advocates. I assume there could be such individuals.

Then you mention “...honest people can admit when they've changed their minds, based on new or additional evidence.”. I am in complete agreement. That was the exact point I was making by producing a link that shows a good number of scientists that were once IPCC contributors / members but who have now rejected the IPCC position.

Richard F. Hoyer

Jimi
Posts: 1875
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi » April 8th, 2019, 3:56 pm

Sorry Richard, my bad, I meant Fleming not "Ferguson". One of those British F-surnames....

Anyway my point about the Fleming work you linked - if you rank-array the dates on his lit cited (in a publication dated 2018) the average date is 1998 and the median is 2001. Setting aside the content of most of those pubs - isn't it odd that a paper titled "An Updated Review" is referring to a body of material that - on average - is 20 years old? A body of material of which 80% is over a decade old. Updated review? Hmm.

1961 2002
1965 2003
1975 2003
1983 2003
1983 2005
1985 2007 2001 median
1987 2007 1998.057143 average
1988 2007
1992 2008
1994 2009
1994 2009
1994 2009
1997 2010
1998 2014
1998 2014
1999 2014
1999 2015
2001


The table I linked does have tiny font. However if you just hit the plus sign, that magnifies it. You have to use the slider bars to scroll left and right, up and down. But it's worth another look - it addresses all of the arguments he makes, plus your main thrust, e.g.:
Identity claim: 31,000 dissenting scientists show there’s no expert consensus on climate change.
Summary of fallacies:
1) Fake experts: 99.9% of the signatories in the Global Warming Petition Project have no expertise in climate science.
2) Magnified minority: While 31,000 science graduates sounds like a lot, it is only 0.3% of the over 10 million people with science degrees in the United States.

Identity claim: The sun is causing currently observed climate change on Earth.
Summary of fallacies:
Slothful induction: Ignores the fact that the Sun has been getting colder for the last 30 years as the Earth has been warming. Sun and climate are moving in opposite directions. Further confirming our understanding is the fact that changing patterns in the yearly and daily cycle confirm human-caused global warming, while ruling out the sun.

We're heading into another ice age because of the cooling sun.
Summary of fallacies:
Single cause: Assumes solar variations are the main driver of climate change and that greenhouse warming is negligible in comparison. In reality, the influence of solar variations is tiny compared to the strong warming effect from rising greenhouse gases. Even if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels, it would only delay global warming by a decade.


You mentioned having a hard time finding anyone who'd changed their mind on the subject. Here's a link to an interesting interview with a guy named Jerry Taylor, who fits the description. It's worth a read:
https://theintercept.com/2017/04/28/how ... r-science/


cheers

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 485
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by WSTREPS » April 8th, 2019, 6:37 pm

The more publicity an issue receives, the more scientist pop up supporting only one side of the argument (the publicized side that is most popular), and the greater the amount of fictionalized information. Sourcing the torrent of research papers, news stories, and all other manor of contrived fodder. Saturating the mainstream to assure the goose that lays the golden eggs stays well protected, Is a poor source of support if the hope is to intelligently dispute the views of those who question the "popular " climate change narrative. This approach demonstrates a clear-cut disregard for objective thought and reasoning. A poor scientist is one who only accepts one side of an unsettled issue rationalizing and promulgating only their own whimsical doctrine.

Ernie Eison

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 485
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by WSTREPS » April 9th, 2019, 4:17 am

Asked if coastal cities such as Miami would be flooding due to sea-level rise caused by alleged man-made global warming, Mörner was unequivocal: “Absolutely not.” “There is no rapid sea-level rise going on today, and there will not be,” he said, citing observable data.
If you need further proof that scientist are crying "wolf". Consider the following,

Scientist, environmental advocacy groups, government and private agencies, are all praising and joining in on the Everglades restoration project, The project is designed to restore water flow to the Everglades because (its drying up.) Drying up? According to climate change experts, this will be the first area to be swallowed up by the sea. So why are so many scientists and everyone else collecting paychecks, so eager to pursue a project that will take at least another three decades to complete, costing 8 billion or more funded dollars. To restore a region that if you listen to climate change experts will be under the sea. Clearly, more than a few scientists have their "Climate change doubts" and there is more than a little double talk going on when it comes to climate change.

Ernie Eison

Added bonus,Costal South Florida real estate values are thru the roof, Coastline construction is rapidly advancing. You can be certain, given all the hype. That billionaire investors are surveying the coastline to see if there is ANY evidence that their huge investments will be "flooded out". Not a single project has been halted because of potentially rising sea levels.

Jimi
Posts: 1875
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi » April 11th, 2019, 3:23 pm

Richard, I sense that you have some heartburn with the UN and the IPCC. How about a domestic assessment, done here, by us, for us.
Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, B. DeAngelo, S. Doherty, K. Hayhoe, R. Horton, J.P. Kossin, P.C. Taylor, A.M. Waple, and C.P. Weaver, 2017: Executive summary. In: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 12-34, doi: 10.7930/J0DJ5CTG.
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/ch ... e-summary/

Here's the source:
Climate Science Special Report
Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4), Volume I

This report is an authoritative assessment of the science of climate change, with a focus on the United States. It represents the first of two volumes of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990.
So that GCRA thing - that's a US law, passed by Congress, signed by the President. It created a national research program, with scientists, and they do stuff. Ask real questions, find real answers, that kind of stuff.

This kind of stuff:
The likely range of the human contribution to the global mean temperature increase over the period 1951–2010 is 1.1° to 1.4°F (0.6° to 0.8°C), and the central estimate of the observed warming of 1.2°F (0.65°C) lies within this range (high confidence). This translates to a likely human contribution of 93%–123% of the observed 1951-2010 change. It is extremely likely that more than half of the global mean temperature increase since 1951 was caused by human influence on climate (high confidence). The likely contributions of natural forcing and internal variability to global temperature change over that period are minor (high confidence).

Don't fall prey to sophistry.

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 485
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by WSTREPS » April 13th, 2019, 1:30 am

FOR ALL THE KOOL-AID DRINKERS .....

Round and round, but it always comes back to the key point, when assessing the climate change debate . First and foremost Science is a for profit business. And like with any business people are career minded , Its foolish to think otherwise. The simulacrum of catastrophic climate change has proven to be very lucrative (both financially and career wise) for those who misreport the jeopardy associated with this commodity. Politicians make their living by lying, scientists are supposed to do the opposite. Career pressures and ego (self entitlement) have seduced an exponentially growing number of scientists into bending the truth. For scientist , career pressure (and you could say ego as well)comes down to funding, If the data isn't backing up the sponsors ideals, the scientist is at great risk of losing their grant / job, maybe having a thesis rejected, not getting tenure, or being passed over for promotion.

When scientist lie, they are stealing. Not only money, but it also steals from the advancement of knowledge that science is supposed to represent. The problem is, for some scientist (by all indications the number is rapidly growing). The advancement of real knowledge and discovery is an acceptable trade off when compared to the loss of funding, career perks, prestige, control……They would sacrifice by telling the truth and so they lie.

Ernie Eison

User avatar
Bryan Hamilton
Posts: 1217
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 8:49 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Bryan Hamilton » April 16th, 2019, 8:55 am

Its a real shame Ernie still has a venue to spread his garbage here.

Jimi
Posts: 1875
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi » April 16th, 2019, 12:15 pm

Yeah. 80 miles out and 6 feet under is too close for some guys! Ha ha ha.

So anyway, that 4th assessment (NCA4) makes for some interesting reading. Here's a summary:
A Summary of Advances Since NCA3

Advances in scientific understanding and scientific approach, as well as developments in global policy, have occurred since NCA3. A detailed summary of these advances can be found at the end of Chapter 1: Our Globally Changing Climate. Highlights of what aspects are either especially strengthened or are emerging in the current findings include

Detection and attribution: Significant advances have been made in the attribution of the human influence for individual climate and weather extreme events since NCA3. (Ch. 3, 6, 7, 8).

Atmospheric circulation and extreme events: The extent to which atmospheric circulation in the midlatitudes is changing or is projected to change, possibly in ways not captured by current climate models, is a new important area of research. (Ch. 5, 6, 7).

Increased understanding of specific types of extreme events: How climate change may affect specific types of extreme events in the United States is another key area where scientific understanding has advanced. (Chapter 9).

High-resolution global climate model simulations: As computing resources have grown, multidecadal simulations of global climate models are now being conducted at horizontal resolutions on the order of 15 miles (25 km) that provide more realistic characterization of intense weather systems, including hurricanes. (Chapter 9).

Oceans and coastal waters: Ocean acidification, warming, and oxygen loss are all increasing, and scientific understanding of the severity of their impacts is growing. Both oxygen loss and acidification may be magnified in some U.S. coastal waters relative to the global average, raising the risk of serious ecological and economic consequences. (Chapters 2, 13).

Local sea level change projections: For the first time in the NCA process, sea level rise projections incorporate geographic variation based on factors such as local land subsidence, ocean currents, and changes in Earth’s gravitational field. (Chapter 12).

Accelerated ice-sheet loss: New observations from many different sources confirm that ice-sheet loss is accelerating. Combining observations with simultaneous advances in the physical understanding of ice sheets leads to the conclusion that up to 8.5 feet of global sea level rise is possible by 2100 under a higher scenario (RCP8.5), up from 6.6 feet in NCA3. (Chapter 12).

Low sea-ice areal extent: The annual arctic sea ice extent minimum for 2016 relative to the long-term record was the second lowest on record. The arctic sea ice minimums in 2014 and 2015 were also amongst the lowest on record. Since 1981, the sea ice minimum has decreased by 13.3% per decade, more than 46% over the 35 years. The annual arctic sea ice maximum in March 2017 was the lowest maximum areal extent on record. (Chapter 11).

Potential surprises: Both large-scale state shifts in the climate system (sometimes called “tipping points”) and compound extremes have the potential to generate unanticipated climate surprises. The further the Earth system departs from historical climate forcings, and the more the climate changes, the greater the potential for these surprises. (Chapter 15).

Mitigation: This report discusses some important aspects of climate science that are relevant to long-term temperature goals and different mitigation scenarios, including those implied by government announcements for the Paris Agreement. (Chapters 4, 14).

For the die-hard deniers who fancy themselves literate, here's a challenge:
Causal Counterfactual Theory for the Attribution of Weather and Climate-Related Events
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.117 ... 14-00034.1

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 583
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » April 17th, 2019, 10:32 am

As I have mentioned previously, a rational approach to the issue of climate change would be to examine both sides before adopting a firm position.

Two recent posts are supportive of the NCA4 document’s results. So in keeping with the above approach, has anyone tried to access information pertaining to scientists that question the results of the NCA4 document?

Yesterday, I just got back from a trip to Monterey County, Calif. related to my effort on the Rubber Boa. So I haven’t had time to fully explore if there exists some critiques of the NCA4 document by some non-governmental scientists.

Richard F. Hoyer

Jimi
Posts: 1875
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi » April 17th, 2019, 12:14 pm

Two recent posts are supportive of the NCA4 document’s results.
Well, it isn't just me, or us. The National Academy of Science, the National Academy of Engineering, and the National Academy of Medicine all participated in a special committee to review (and recommend edits to) an earlier draft of this Assessment. This review - and what was done with the recommendations - is discussed in some of the supporting documentation that's linked at the site.
has anyone tried to access information pertaining to scientists that question the results of the NCA4 document?
Not me. I've got better things to do than search out things said by people who dispute the findings of the US National Academies of, wait for it, Science, Engineering, AND Medicine. Three national brain trusts. I could also mentioned the National Academies of all other first-rate scientific nations...

The trouble is, you're coming at this as if it's new. If it were new, the "let's look at both sides" angle would be perfectly suitable and reasonable. But, it just isn't new. People have been working hard on this for about 30 years. It's a pretty mature field by now - if you want to frame it as a 2-sided thing, well, you've got the side with (using an index) about 997 educated, informed people, and the (shrinking) side with about 3 educated, informed people still on it. Whatever a billion howling shrieking idiots have to say, that doesn't really matter from a reliable-knowledge perspective. I'm just looking at - no, wait, I am relying on - the folks who are educated and informed on the matter. Not economists. Not truck drivers. Not radio show hosts, nor TV pundits. I'm looking to the National Academy of Science. The other two, honestly, they're just gravy.

Anyway, I certainly don't mean to bully you into anything, Richard - I really want you to know and feel that. I also hope your trip down south was a pleasure and a success.

cheers

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 583
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » April 20th, 2019, 9:49 am

Dr. James Hansen, 12/2/16:
“The ponderous response of the climate system also means that we don’t need to instantaneously reduce GHG amounts.”

The above quote by James Hansen is completely counter to the (alarmist) positions he has taken in the past since his 1988 testimony before Congress.

For viewing the context in which Dr. Hansen's statement was made, It can be found in the first sentence of the third paragraph on, ‘We Hold Truths to be Self-Evident 02 December 2016 James Hansen’

Richard F. Hoyer (Corvallis, Oregon)

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 583
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » April 20th, 2019, 9:58 am

The following two links also refer to Dr. James Hansen. With respect to my position that both sides of the 'climate change' issue should be examined, I hope these links prove to be particularly informative.

NASA Whistleblower Exposes Huge Climate Model Gaffes | PSI Intl
NASA's James Hansen Knew Climate Models Are Fudged | PSI Intl

Richard F. Hoyer

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4319
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Kelly Mc » April 20th, 2019, 4:18 pm

Nature and political leanings, are an untenable fit to my primitive mind.

User avatar
Bryan Hamilton
Posts: 1217
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 8:49 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Bryan Hamilton » April 20th, 2019, 4:52 pm

With respect to my position that both sides of the 'climate change' issue should be examined,
I agree that folks should examine both sides. However you're not presenting both sides Richard. You're presenting an extremist position and trying to pretend its a centrist view. You do this time and time again even when presented with contradictory evidence. You do it with climate change and with conservation biology. Perhaps you're just a contrarian. I don't know but its not fun or interesting to me anymore.

And you align yourself with Ernie, who is dishonest and clearly not interested in pursuing truth. That's not a place I want to visit and I feel sorry for anyone that lives there.

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4319
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Kelly Mc » April 20th, 2019, 8:40 pm

If someone is resistant to accepting that anthropogenic impacts have negative consequences because it aligns with their personal ideologies or agendas or political traditions, that seems like a block to understanding, as reality, Earth, has nothing to do with our belief systems, or the way we may want society to operate.

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 583
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » April 22nd, 2019, 9:43 am

For anyone that did not understand the basic intent of my posts and overlooked the explanation for initiating this thread, below I have copied the preface to my initial post.

“Preface: The environmental issue of ‘climate change’ surfaced in the thread by ‘stlouisdude’ that has since been removed from this forum. The IPCC scenario that human are the basic cause for global warming has been championed by the environmental community and most, if not all of the major the mainstream media outlets. There has been virtually no balance in the media coverage of this very important issue showing where many scientists question the scenario advance by the IPCC.

In the ‘stlouisdude’ thread, I posted a message suggesting it was premature to have reached a firm position one way or the other. That is, there was a different side to the issue and that the science is not settled and continues to this day. This post is the first of four that provides some information that relates to the other side of the climate change / global warming debate. I thus will leave it up to each individual to access Google and review the innumerable links that support the IPCC position.”

Richard F. Hoyer

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 583
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » April 22nd, 2019, 9:48 am

Kelly’s post of 4/20 makes an important point. But a corollary should to be included and considered.

‘If someone is resistant to accepting that anthropogenic impacts have marginal consequences (on climate) because it doesn’t align with their personal ideologies, or agendas, or political traditions, that seems like a block to understanding.’

Richard F. Hoyer

Jimi
Posts: 1875
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi » April 22nd, 2019, 9:55 am

Richard, I simply can't agree with this characterization you make:
“The ponderous response of the climate system also means that we don’t need to instantaneously reduce GHG amounts.”

The above quote by James Hansen is completely counter to the (alarmist) positions he has taken in the past since his 1988 testimony before Congress. For viewing the context in which Dr. Hansen's statement was made, It can be found in the first sentence of the third paragraph on, ‘We Hold Truths to be Self-Evident 02 December 2016 James Hansen’

Richard F. Hoyer (Corvallis, Oregon)


My reason for disagreeing is contained in the full quote, here (emphasis mine):
The ponderous response of the climate system also means that we don’t need to instantaneously reduce GHG amounts. However, despite uncertainties about some climate processes, we know enough to say that the time scale on which we must begin to reduce atmospheric GHG amounts is measured in decades, not centuries. Given the fact that the fastest time scale to replace energy systems is decades, that means that we must get the political processes moving now. And that won’t happen until the public has understanding of what is actually needed and demands it.”
His position is consistent. Not that I'm making a personality cult of one guy - it's that about 99.7% of experts agree with him.

User avatar
Bryan Hamilton
Posts: 1217
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 8:49 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Bryan Hamilton » April 22nd, 2019, 12:40 pm

I've been working to communicate more effectively. I liked this article.

https://www.chatelaine.com/living/how-t ... hange/amp/

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 485
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by WSTREPS » April 22nd, 2019, 3:27 pm

When scientist stoop to writing condescending, patronizing puff pieces. They are not trying to communicate more effectively, They are attempting to convince, not educate (get as many as possible to drink at their Kool-Ad stand). The heavy use of fear tactics along with a concerted effort to gain sympathetic support. Are a sure sign that you are dealing with a scientist that is both disingenuous and above all else egomaniacal. They truly look at you as the simpleminded public that must be trained to follow their wants.


Ernie Eison

Jimi
Posts: 1875
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi » April 22nd, 2019, 4:30 pm

Thanks Bryan, that was interesting.

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 485
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by WSTREPS » April 23rd, 2019, 2:19 pm

Federal Lab Forced To Close After ‘Disturbing’ Data Manipulation, Federally funded environmental lab fabricated data for 18 years; forced to close after fraud became too large to cover up.

Nearly two decades and $108 million worth of “disturbing” data manipulation

“Tell me what you want and I will get it for you. What we do is like magic,” a former USGS official told auditors"

The inorganic section of the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) Energy Geochemistry Laboratory in Lakewood, Colo. manipulated data on a variety of topics – including many related to the environment – from 1996 to 2014. The manipulation was caught in 2008, but continued another six years.

It should be known that Bryan Hamilton studied at this lab, going so far as to say that it was held up as "the gold standard 0f labs".

The people that are genuinely dishonest are not the people that question the dubious science involved with high profile issues such as climate change. It's those who ignore the blatantly rampant misconduct taking place in the world of science, pretending it doesn't exist, attacking those who recognize it.

Ernie Eison

User avatar
Bryan Hamilton
Posts: 1217
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 8:49 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Bryan Hamilton » April 23rd, 2019, 3:56 pm

WSTREPS wrote:
April 23rd, 2019, 2:19 pm
It should be known that Bryan Hamilton studied at this lab, going so far as to say that it was held up as "the gold standard 0f labs".
I consider this a personal attack. I'm not leaving this forum like so many other scientists have. Personal attacks I believe are against the terms of use for the forum but no one enforces the rules here. Its too bad.

I did say something to the effect that this lab was a gold standard for quality lab analysis.

I have never studied at this lab. Ernie is lying, which just means he made another post.

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 583
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » April 23rd, 2019, 6:24 pm

EE
Having first hand experience with working for a federal agency (USDA) in research, I am fully aware of the social nature that exists in such federal employment. There is an unspoken taboo that if you value you continued employment, possible step increases, or promotions, you do not dare rock the boat. This can lead to the some very ‘unhealthy’ situations if the immediate supervisor or head of your facility has bias and agendas that are counter to good research, etc.

But you have used a broad brush that makes it seem as if all scientists in government are suspect. Such a position, or alluding to such a position Is not very rational if you sit back and think about it.

And Ernie, we already have had one thread removed by the administrator. I urge you use be more careful in the wording you use in your posts. But of course, that applies to everyone including me.

When I Googled “Federal Lab Forced To Close After ‘Disturbing’ Data Manipulation”, there were a good number of links that pertained to that particular situation. One of the better links I believe is as follows: Investigators: USGS lab worker in Colorado faked test results

Richard F. Hoyer

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 583
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » April 23rd, 2019, 9:43 pm

JG,
I am quite aware that Dr. Hansen’s basic position hasn’t changed with respects to his views that humans are responsible for climate change. But I believe his earlier positions placed greater urgency in contrast to where he mentions “---we don’t need to instantaneously reduce GHG amounts.”

In hind sight, I should also have included the following quote: “However, despite uncertainties about some climate processes, we know enough to say that the time scale on which we must begin to reduce atmospheric GHG amounts is measured in decades, not centuries.”

His mentioning the need to act is measured in ‘decades’ contrast sharply with the advocates of the Green New Deal who claim we need to act in the next 11- 12 years or something of that nature.

Question: How did you arrive at about 99.7% of experts agree with Dr. Hansen? What is your source?

Richard F. Hoyer

Jimi
Posts: 1875
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi » April 24th, 2019, 7:55 am

When I Googled “Federal Lab Forced To Close After ‘Disturbing’ Data Manipulation”, there were a good number of links that pertained to that particular situation. One of the better links I believe is as follows: Investigators: USGS lab worker in Colorado faked test results
Richard, your links aren't working. Use the 10th toolbar item from the left (the left-most being the Bold button).

Yes, the lab story is well-documented. It is interesting, it is egregious, and - eventually - accountability was enforced. The USDI Inspector General's report makes for pretty good reading. As does the Congressional (House) oversight panel's work. And the State of Arizona did some good work following up on the tainted uranium assessment and its implications. But you are absolutely correct - villifying "science and scientists" over the actions of one rogue employee is highly irrational. At least it is, if you want to be honest and truthful...

Question: How did you arrive at about 99.7% of experts agree with Dr. Hansen? What is your source?
I'm just repeating something I read, possibly with a slight memory error. I admit I haven't surveyed millions of scientists myself. Did you see that table of climate-change denial logical fallacies yet? There's one source. Please tell me what number they use. I could be off a percent or two. We can carry on this line of thought then.

In hind sight, I should also have included the following quote: “However, despite uncertainties about some climate processes, we know enough to say that the time scale on which we must begin to reduce atmospheric GHG amounts is measured in decades, not centuries.”

His mentioning the need to act is measured in ‘decades’ contrast sharply with the advocates of the Green New Deal who claim we need to act in the next 11- 12 years or something of that nature.

I think you're misreading the situation badly. We need to distinguish between these phases: 1) taking action to slow, then stop, then ultimately reverse the rate of anthropogenic atmospheric loading (which drives the concentrations up), and 2) the necessary result of those actions, which is to "reduce GHG amounts" (drive the concentrations down).


There is no conflict between a scientist who says "we need to get the concentrations down over the next decades" (phase 2), and a politician who says "we need to start taking steps now to reduce loading" (phase 1). The positions are complementary. You cannot get the result, without taking the first step.

Look, it's common sense. When you're deep in a hole, and you're digging down but you need to come up out of there, the first thing to do is put down the shovel. It might take a while to crawl out, but you just have to put down that shovel first. See the difference? It will be ponderous, yes, to get out of the hole. But we don't have much time to stop digging deeper. Right now we're still digging fast. Suicidally fast. It's profoundly disturbing.

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 485
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by WSTREPS » April 24th, 2019, 2:42 pm

This lab was kind of held up as the gold standard of labs. I've taken classwork on mass spectrometry and the quality assurance quality control portion was taught by some of these same USGS staff.... Bryan Hamilton
Clearly I did not lie as Bryan Hamilton claims in his personal attack against me. I admittingly, premised on the context of Bryan Hamilton's statement. Misplaced where Bryan Hamilton's studies took place. The key focal point of my preceding comment remains true and intact, that Bryan Hamilton was taught by some of these same USGS staff people. Its not where but who that is the key point and one that Bryan Hamilton selectively left out of his misguided rebuttal .

What is highly irrational are attempts to mitigate the egregious crimes committed at the (USGS) Energy Geochemistry Laboratory. Efforts to buffer the crimes that occurred at the lab, are as deplorable but not as profitable as what took place at the lab itself, it always seems when the letters USGS and the word scientist are joined, there's a secure reason to be, politely put …..skeptical .

Ernie Eison

One futher clarifaication,

I don't think all and never said all scientist are suspect. If I've been misinterpreted...…… I don't think I've used a broad brush in the sense of lumping all scientist together, but its certainly true that a broad cross section (not all) fall under the umbrella of the topics I speak about.

craigb
Posts: 625
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:02 am
Location: Southern Cal.

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by craigb » April 25th, 2019, 7:18 am

Wow ..... good thread.
My only thoughts are that much of the research out there is done for publicity.
Many of those in academia must publish research to justify their positions.
There is the "hitch". Some is good honest research and some is not.
Some of it may be true until another researcher disproves it. Hence a never ending cycle.

Discussion is good. With a few exceptions this has been a civil exchange of information meant to educate and inform.

One thing that does hold true is that it is a complex issue, and needs to be scrutinized.

Thank you Richard for starting the thread. If one takes the time, and keeps an open mind, learning will follow.

craigb

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 485
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by WSTREPS » April 25th, 2019, 10:49 am

Image
This is a reptile related site so this thread should include at least some reptile related content that ties into the main topic.
More than a decade has passed since this widely panned USGS press fodder was slapped on the front page of USA TODAY. Spearheading an entire industry of reptile related careers all based on the exploitation of scientific lies.

Comments on a Flawed Herpetological Paper and an Improper and Damaging News Release from a Government Agency
http://vpi.com/sites/default/files/Tympanum_21.pdf
We feel that the U.S. Geological Survey and its employees have acted improperly in the manner in which this report was prepared and then released to the public. This is particularly egregious considering that the paper itself is little more than yellow journalism cloaked as science. We question whether the agenda that was transparently the underlying basis for this paper, that being to exaggerate and inflate the problems posed by Burmese pythons in South Florida, was that of the researchers, or of the U.S. Geological Survey, itself. The highly subjective nature of this invalid study, the inflammatory and incorrect results publicized in the USGS news release, and the resulting media storm, have been the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater --lots of people were hurt, and there was no fire. David G. Barker and Tracy M. Barker
To clarify, Dave and Tracy Barker are arguably without peer as two of the worlds foremost authority's on pythons. They are not only legendary herpetoculturist. They are both well respected scientist with extensive backgrounds in research, education, field studies, systematics, taxonomy, natural history, animal behavior, morphology, reproductive physiology, captive breeding and animal and plant conservation.

Ernie Eison

Jimi
Posts: 1875
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by Jimi » April 25th, 2019, 4:20 pm

My only thoughts are that much of the research out there is done for publicity.
Many of those in academia must publish research to justify their positions.
There is the "hitch". Some is good honest research and some is not.
Some of it may be true until another researcher disproves it. Hence a never ending cycle.
I'm thinking you've been drinking too much out of the bitter cup others have offered here. Way too much. That stuff reads like the rantings of a drunk street cop at the end of career surrounded by human ugliness - all he can perceive is human ugliness, and it's made him stinkin' ugly. Craig, I ask in friendship - do you really want to be that guy? Be anything like that guy? Let me try to expand your perspective.

Research is done to answer the question that was 1) posed by the granting entity through e.g. an RFP (request for proposal) or NOFO (notice of funding opportunity), or 2) asked by the employer (which would have some sort of internal funding mechanism - usually a competitive one, in that there are more questions than dollars).

Either way, accepting money to answer a question typically results in a contract, in fact or in effect. Writing up results and trying to get them published is a normal contractual obligation. I know this firsthand, having gotten a few such grants and having administered many grants or contracts or both on the "giving out" side. Really, a Grant Agreement is just one flavor of contract. A grant report is a normal deliverable; usually they are structured & formatted so as to be ready to send to whatever journal is most appropriate to get them published in. Think about it from another angle - what if "they" were just tossing out dollars, with no expectation that the recipients would try to do such a good job that their results would merit publication? Would that be a good situation? It doesn't exist; should it?

Good research - addressing a pertinent question, having a clear objective, taking a credible approach, using good analytical techniques, and drawing reasonable conclusions - has a fair chance (but no guarantee) of getting published. Poor research has a much lower chance; now, that has changed some with self-publication, the internet and so on. You can read the craziest junk on the internet. But the journals of scientific societies or associations still perform a significant quality-control function.

As for the never-ending cycle, and proving/disproving - would you have it any other way? Things - materials, instruments, analytical tools, and facts on the ground - change, sometimes fast and sometimes huge. The ornithologist who might have written in 1845 that passenger pigeons were crazy abundant couldn't have honestly said the same thing in 1875 could he? The physicist who in 1915 might well have told you atomic weapons were impossible - could they have honestly said the same thing in September 1945? The virologist who might have written in 1985 that HIV was a complete mystery couldn't have honestly said the same thing in 2015 could she?

And so it goes with climate science, predictions about the future, and the attribution of cause or blame. We know a lot more - with more accuracy and more certainty - in 2019 than we did in 2009. In 2009 we knew much more than we did in 1999. But even back in 1989, the basic facts were becoming quite clear...and now 30 years on, it really is untrue to suggest - let alone state unequivocally - that there remains any credible doubt about what is happening now, or why it is happening, or what else is likely to happen if we don't get off our asses and do something big, and do it fast. "The end of life as we know it" is what is likely to happen.

craigb
Posts: 625
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:02 am
Location: Southern Cal.

Re: Climate change revisited

Post by craigb » April 25th, 2019, 7:31 pm

Jimi: I am not like that guy, or any other guy. I am me.
All people have opinions. I think more can be gained by listening rather that ridiculing.

By the way I have two research Biologists as my sons. One Ph.D, the other soon to be Ph.d.
I listen to them and others ...

I go back to my original thought. This thread encourages discussion.
If we can avoid the personal attacks, we might learn something (or at least enjoy the mental exercise).

Post Reply