PDA

View Full Version : Concensus on MMGW



Gary Severson
08-16-2011, 06:18 PM
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htmhttp:

Greg Burnham
08-16-2011, 11:11 PM
31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with a PhD. There is NO consensus. But, even if there was a consensus, scientific truth is not determined by a show of hands. Galileo stood alone, but he was right. So, even though a consensus does not prove the theory is correct--there is no consensus to begin with!


http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_images/Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg

Qualifications of Signers

Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.

Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,812 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

4. Chemistry includes 4,822 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,965 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

7. Engineering and general science includes 10,102 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers' educations.

Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,805)

1. Atmosphere (579)

I) Atmospheric Science (112)
II) Climatology (39)
III) Meteorology (343)
IV) Astronomy (59)
V) Astrophysics (26)

2. Earth (2,240)

I) Earth Science (94)
II) Geochemistry (63)
III) Geology (1,684)
IV) Geophysics (341)
V) Geoscience (36)
VI) Hydrology (22)

3. Environment (986)

I) Environmental Engineering (487)
II) Environmental Science (253)
III) Forestry (163)
IV) Oceanography (83)

Computers & Math (935)

1. Computer Science (242)

2. Math (693)

I) Mathematics (581)
II) Statistics (112)
Physics & Aerospace (5,812)

1. Physics (5,225)

I) Physics (2,365)
II) Nuclear Engineering (223)
III) Mechanical Engineering (2,637)

2. Aerospace Engineering (587)

Chemistry (4,822)

1. Chemistry (3,129)

2. Chemical Engineering (1,693)

Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,965)

1. Biochemistry (744)

I) Biochemistry (676)
II) Biophysics (68)

2. Biology (1,438)

I) Biology (1,049)
II) Ecology (76)
III) Entomology (59)
IV) Zoology (149)
V) Animal Science (105)

3. Agriculture (783)

I) Agricultural Science (296)
II) Agricultural Engineering (114)
III) Plant Science (292)
IV) Food Science (81)

Medicine (3,046)

1. Medical Science (719)

2. Medicine (2,327)

General Engineering & General Science (10,102)

1. General Engineering (9,833)

I) Engineering (7,280)
II) Electrical Engineering (2,169)
III) Metallurgy (384)

2. General Science (269)

Gary Severson
08-16-2011, 11:42 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/contributors/kevin-grandia/headshot.jpg (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia)
Kevin Grandia (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia)

Managing editor, www.energyboom.com
Posted: July 22, 2009 04:47 PM







The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked Propaganda (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html)




(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html#comments)




To say that the oft-touted "30,000 Global Warming Petition (http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php)" project stinks would be the understatement of the year.
I thought it would be timely to once again break down this flawed piece of global warming denier propaganda after it was mentioned last night in Daily Show host Jon Stewart's interview (http://www.desmogblog.com/jon-stewart-steven-chu-super-hero-battling-global-warming-deniers)with US Energy Secretary of Energy, Dr. Stephen Chu.
.1% of Signers Have a Background in Climatology
The Petition Project website offers a breakdown of the areas of expertise (http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php)of those who have signed the petition.
In the realm of climate science it breaks it breaks down as such:
Atmospheric Science (113)
Climatology (39)
Meteorology (341)
Astronomy (59)
Astrophysics (26)
So only .1% of the individuals on the list of 30,000 signatures have a scientific background in Climatology. To be fair, we can add in those who claim to have a background in Atmospheric Science, which brings the total percentage of signatories with a background in climate change science to a whopping .5%.
The page does not break out the names of those who do claim to be experts in Climatology and Atmospheric Science, which makes even that .5% questionable [see my section on "unverifiable mess" below].
This makes an already questionable list seem completely insignificant given the nature of scientific endeavor.
When I think I'm having chest pains I don't go to the dermatologist, I go to a cardiologist because it would be absurd to go to skin doctor for a heart problem. It would be equally absurd to look to a scientist with a background in medicine (of which there are 3,046 on the petition) for an expert opinion on the science of climate change. With science broken down into very narrow specialties a scientific expert in one specialty does not make that person an automatic authority in all things science.
In this way the logic of the 30,000 petition is completely flawed, which isn't surprising given its questionable beginnings.

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2009-07-22-oregoninstituteheadquarters.jpg
The Petition's Sordid Beginnings
The petition first emerged in April 1998 and was organized by Art Robinson of the self-proclaimed "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" (OISM) (http://www.oism.org/)[their headquarters are the Photo Inset].
Along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute (http://www.desmogblog.com/exxons-3-million-ventriloquist-act), Robinson's group co-published the infamous "Oregon Petition" claiming to have collected 17,000 signatories to a document arguing against the realities of global warming.
The petition and the documents included were all made to look like official papers from the prestigious National Academy of Science (http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer). They weren't, and this attempt to mislead has been well-documented.
Along with the petition there was a cover letter from Dr. Fred Seitz (http://www.oism.org/pproject/index.htm)(who has since died), a notorious climate change denier (and big tobacco scientist) who over 30 years ago was the president of the National Academy of Science.
Also attached to the petition was an apparent "research paper" (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm)titled Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. The paper was made to mimic what a research paper would look like in the National Academy's prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy journal. The authors of the paper were Robinson, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon (both oil-backed scientists) and Robinson's son Zachary. With the signature of a former NAS president and a research paper that appeared to be published in one of the most prestigious science journals in the world, many scientists were duped into signing a petition based on a false impression.
The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release (http://mediamatters.org/items/200602140013) stating: "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."
An Unverifiable Mess
Time and time again, I have had emails from researchers who have taken random samples of names from the list and Google searched them for more information. I urge others to do the same. What you'll quickly find is either no information, very little information or information substantiating the fact that the vast majority of signers are completely unqualified in the area of climate change science.
For example,
"Munawwar M. Akhtar" - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.
"Fred A. Allehoff" - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.
"Ernest J. Andberg" - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.
"Joseph J. Arx" - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.
"Adolph L. Amundson" - a paper by Amundson on the "London Tunnel Water Treatment System Acid Mine Drainage." [PDF]
"Henry W. Apfelbach" - an Orthopedic Surgeon
"Joe R. Arechavaleta" - runs an Architect and Engineering company.
And this is only names I picked in the "A's." I could go on, but you get my point. The list is very difficult to verify as a third-party, but this hasn't stopped the Petition from bouncing around the internet and showing up in mainstream media.
Given all this it seems to me that anyone touting this as proof that "global warming is a hoax" completely misunderstands the process of scientific endeavor (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/04/) or has completely exhausted (http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/23387/30000_Scientists_Sign_Petition_on_Global_Warming.h tml)any real argument that rightfully brings into to doubt the reality of climate change.
Or, then again, they could just be in it for the money. (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00005582&cycle=2010)

Keith Millea
08-17-2011, 03:16 PM
Yeah,good old Art Robinson.He ran as the Tea party candidate against our progressive representative Peter DeFazio in 2010.He got whipped..........

:hobbyhorse:

Magda Hassan
09-28-2013, 02:01 AM
Cabal’s Heartland Institute Denies Peer-Reviewed Science

Friday, 27 September 2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EusTNrLZtuk&feature=youtu.be

Connor Gibson Questions Heartland Institute Pres. Joe Bast.
Please click on the photo to watch the video.

Yesterday, (ALEC/Koch/AFP Cabal member) the Heritage Foundation hosted (ALEC/Koch/AFP Cabal member) The Heartland Institute’s CEO Joseph Bast, along with two of Heartland’s contracted climate denial scientists (Willie Soon (http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/CASE-STUDY-Dr-Willie-Soon-a-Career-Fueled-by-Big-Oil-and-Coal/) andBob Carter (http://www.desmogblog.com/bob-carter)), to present their new report that denies the seriousness of http://respriv.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Heartland-Institute-leaders-caricature.png (http://respriv.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Heartland-Institute-leaders-caricature.png)global warming. Greenpeace was there to ask Heartland about the report’s funders, including billionaire Barre Seid (http://desmogblog.com/2012/10/25/key-findings-mashey-report-donors-trust), and to challenge Heartland’s assertion that their work has any scientific validity (it doesn’t (http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/Dealing-in-Doubt---the-Climate-Denial-Machine-vs-Climate-Science/Dealing-in-Doubt-Heartland-Institute-NIPCC-Climate-Change-Reconsidered-global-warming-denial/)).
Heartland’s “Climate Change Reconsidered,” written by the usual climate denier suspects under the guise of the “Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change” (NIPCC) is intended to undermine new scientific findings from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Despite what Joe Bast and Heartland comms director Jim Lakely claim, their false report is not peer-reviewed, a formal process (http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16) conducted by editors at actual scientific journals have other qualified scientists rigorously review and critique submitted work if it is to be approved for publication.
You’ll notice that Heartland’s climate denial report isn’t being published in any scientific journals, but rather from Heartland itself. This is because the document is a public relations tool intended to keep politicians and the public doubting that global warming is worth addressing.
While Heartland continues politicizing science, demonizing credible scientists and using tobacco industry tactics to forge doubt over global warming, Americans are feeling the real toll climate change is already taking on society, by increasing the severity of storms like hurricane Sandy or pushing droughts, wildfires and heatwaves to new extremes.
Heartland doesn’t care, or even recognize, that global warming is already costing (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/26/climate-change-damaging-global-economy) the global economy $1.2 trillion dollarsand contributing to 400,000 deaths each year. They don’t care that billion-dollar weather disasters, intensified by climate change (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/), are on the rise and impacting the U.S. economy and our infrastructure (http://www.law360.com/articles/456556/doe-says-climate-change-threatens-us-energy-infrastructure). Nor do they accept repeated research indicating the overwhelming consensus (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024) among credentialed climate scientists that human fossil fuel use is the primary driver of unnatural global warming–in fact Heartland’s staff have repeatedly lied (http://polluterwatch.org/blog/dear-greenpeace-5-lies-heartland-institute) to cast doubt upon that research.

Greg Burnham
09-28-2013, 02:27 AM
Anthropomorphic Global Warming (recently amended to "climate change" when it was proven that the planet has cooled in the past decade) Alarmism is at its finest when those who--by their own admission, know next to nothing about the subject and who have, again by their own admission--failed to conduct sufficient research into the subject to have an informed opinion (you know who you are) chime in.

Incidentally, that a person or an institution is in error wittingly or otherwise (in your opinion) regarding subject A does not mean that that person or institution is therefore also in error regarding subject B (and/or every other subject). Poisoning the well should not be the standard upon which arguments are advanced amongst rational investigators. Labeling those who question the conclusions, criticize the methodology employed, or challenge the validity of the processes upon which the conclusions were based as: "Climate Denial Scientists" -- or referring to laypersons who challenge the IPCC's motives as: "Climate Denialists" or similar derogatory labels constitutes ad hominem.



Cabal’s Heartland Institute Denies Peer-Reviewed Science

Friday, 27 September 2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EusTNrLZtuk&feature=youtu.be

Connor Gibson Questions Heartland Institute Pres. Joe Bast.
Please click on the photo to watch the video.

Yesterday, (ALEC/Koch/AFP Cabal member) the Heritage Foundation hosted (ALEC/Koch/AFP Cabal member) The Heartland Institute’s CEO Joseph Bast, along with two of Heartland’s contracted climate denial scientists (Willie Soon (http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/CASE-STUDY-Dr-Willie-Soon-a-Career-Fueled-by-Big-Oil-and-Coal/) andBob Carter (http://www.desmogblog.com/bob-carter)), to present their new report that denies the seriousness of http://respriv.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Heartland-Institute-leaders-caricature.png (http://respriv.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Heartland-Institute-leaders-caricature.png)global warming. Greenpeace was there to ask Heartland about the report’s funders, including billionaire Barre Seid (http://desmogblog.com/2012/10/25/key-findings-mashey-report-donors-trust), and to challenge Heartland’s assertion that their work has any scientific validity (it doesn’t (http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/Dealing-in-Doubt---the-Climate-Denial-Machine-vs-Climate-Science/Dealing-in-Doubt-Heartland-Institute-NIPCC-Climate-Change-Reconsidered-global-warming-denial/)).
Heartland’s “Climate Change Reconsidered,” written by the usual climate denier suspects under the guise of the “Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change” (NIPCC) is intended to undermine new scientific findings from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Despite what Joe Bast and Heartland comms director Jim Lakely claim, their false report is not peer-reviewed, a formal process (http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16) conducted by editors at actual scientific journals have other qualified scientists rigorously review and critique submitted work if it is to be approved for publication.
You’ll notice that Heartland’s climate denial report isn’t being published in any scientific journals, but rather from Heartland itself. This is because the document is a public relations tool intended to keep politicians and the public doubting that global warming is worth addressing.
While Heartland continues politicizing science, demonizing credible scientists and using tobacco industry tactics to forge doubt over global warming, Americans are feeling the real toll climate change is already taking on society, by increasing the severity of storms like hurricane Sandy or pushing droughts, wildfires and heatwaves to new extremes.
Heartland doesn’t care, or even recognize, that global warming is already costing (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/26/climate-change-damaging-global-economy) the global economy $1.2 trillion dollarsand contributing to 400,000 deaths each year. They don’t care that billion-dollar weather disasters, intensified by climate change (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/), are on the rise and impacting the U.S. economy and our infrastructure (http://www.law360.com/articles/456556/doe-says-climate-change-threatens-us-energy-infrastructure). Nor do they accept repeated research indicating the overwhelming consensus (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024) among credentialed climate scientists that human fossil fuel use is the primary driver of unnatural global warming–in fact Heartland’s staff have repeatedly lied (http://polluterwatch.org/blog/dear-greenpeace-5-lies-heartland-institute) to cast doubt upon that research.

Magda Hassan
09-28-2013, 02:54 AM
Greg you really should stick to JFK the same way Jeffery Orling should stick to building houses. This subject is not your strong point.

Greg Burnham
09-28-2013, 04:59 AM
Greg you really should stick to JFK the same way Jeffery Orling should stick to building houses. This subject is not your strong point.

Magda,

This subject is not YOUR strong point--by your own admission! I have never made such an admission as to do so would be untrue.

Magda Hassan
09-28-2013, 05:09 AM
I posted one article without comment. This in a thread where others including yourself have commented. You are the one who likes to to pop up and make comments about climate change and what bs it is. Something you admit you are unqualified for. But it doesn't stop you from shooting your mouth off does it? Deal with the article and its content and not me please. Leave the ad homs out. You comprehension skills seem to also be lacking if you think I am the one to reply to and not the article. Which then creates doubt about the validity of any thing you might have to say on this subject able to be taken seriously. As I said best stick to what you are better at. This is not your area of expertise.


Greg you really should stick to JFK the same way Jeffery Orling should stick to building houses. This subject is not your strong point.

Magda,

This subject is not YOUR strong point--by your own admission! I have never made such an admission as to do so would be untrue.

Albert Doyle
09-28-2013, 05:38 AM
Climate Crock:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKBq53f7tWM&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33

Greg Burnham
09-28-2013, 05:45 AM
Magda,

This is YOUR forum, not mine. You are free to post whatever you desire. In the spirit of free speech I would imagine that I am free to comment as I see fit so long as I don't break forum rules. However, I perhaps wrongly assumed that you were responsible for adding emphasis to the article even though you didn't indicate you did so. In which case I again wrongly assumed that that was a statement of endorsement of those portions. The article itself is rife with ad hominem in the form of labeling dissenters as "Climate Science Denialists" and the like. Your having posted that article sure "felt" like you agreed with it since you didn't state otherwise. I take exception to that because the article is actually an attack on those, like me, who question and challenge the party line.

Just to be clear, what constitutes "topics members are allowed to post to" these days? Am I on moderation? Is Lauren allowed to post about Global Warming, a subject in which he has demonstrated interest, but without any particular expertise, but I am not? I know his opinions are perhaps more in line with those who believe in man-made Global Warming than are mine, but where do you draw the line? I'm just wanting to be clear on the rules of engagement.

Thanks--


I posted one article without comment. This in a thread where others including yourself have commented. You are the one who likes to to pop up and make comments about climate change and what bs it is. Something you admit you are unqualified for. But it doesn't stop you from shooting your mouth off does it? Deal with the article and its content and not me please. Leave the ad homs out. You comprehension skills seem to also be lacking if you think I am the one to reply to and not the article. Which then creates doubt about the validity of any thing you might have to say on this subject able to be taken seriously. As I said best stick to what you are better at. This is not your area of expertise.


Greg you really should stick to JFK the same way Jeffery Orling should stick to building houses. This subject is not your strong point.

Magda,

This subject is not YOUR strong point--by your own admission! I have never made such an admission as to do so would be untrue.

Magda Hassan
09-28-2013, 06:16 AM
No. The article was posted as is. I made no edits and would have noted so if I had. I try to post things that are of interest to most of the people here and those that read. Not everyone is interested in each and every subject. For off topic posts there is the 'Lounge' area. I don't think there are any off area topic though some, like 'The Jews killed JFK', will probably get short shift and end up in the Bear Pit. I am pleased you are interested in climate change as a deep political subject. I'm not interested in the ad homs that article writers make about whom ever but about keeping a venue that is conducive to ongoing civil communication between its members. Those members will be at various stages of expertise and education. And as you say while one person may be an expert in one area that doesn't make it so that they are in all others. My interest does not lie with the science so much, I accept the science is in that there is climate change occurring, so much as with the money backing the climate change denial. That, for me, is the deep political interest. That may not be your interest.


Magda,

This is YOUR forum, not mine. You are free to post whatever you desire. In the spirit of free speech I would imagine that I am free to comment as I see fit so long as I don't break forum rules. However, I perhaps wrongly assumed that you were responsible for adding emphasis to the article even though you didn't indicate you did so. In which case I again wrongly assumed that that was a statement of endorsement of those portions. The article itself is rife with ad hominem in the form of labeling dissenters as "Climate Science Denialists" and the like. Your having posted that article sure "felt" like you agreed with it since you didn't state otherwise. I take exception to that because the article is actually an attack on those, like me, who question and challenge the party line.

Just to be clear, what constitutes "topics members are allowed to post to" these days? Am I on moderation? Is Lauren allowed to post about Global Warming, a subject in which he has demonstrated interest, but without any particular expertise, but I am not? I know his opinions are perhaps more in line with those who believe in man-made Global Warming than are mine, but where do you draw the line? I'm just wanting to be clear on the rules of engagement.

Thanks--


I posted one article without comment. This in a thread where others including yourself have commented. You are the one who likes to to pop up and make comments about climate change and what bs it is. Something you admit you are unqualified for. But it doesn't stop you from shooting your mouth off does it? Deal with the article and its content and not me please. Leave the ad homs out. You comprehension skills seem to also be lacking if you think I am the one to reply to and not the article. Which then creates doubt about the validity of any thing you might have to say on this subject able to be taken seriously. As I said best stick to what you are better at. This is not your area of expertise.


Greg you really should stick to JFK the same way Jeffery Orling should stick to building houses. This subject is not your strong point.

Magda,

This subject is not YOUR strong point--by your own admission! I have never made such an admission as to do so would be untrue.

Phil Dragoo
09-28-2013, 07:58 AM
The report was that there has not been a rise in temperature since 1998

A hypothesis being tested has the heat "going into the sea"

hence 30,000 sensors monitored via satellite

The announcer cited concerns of rising sea levels "from melting ice caps"

yet the ice is of record size, increased at both poles

I stipulate this Gorean panic to cap and trade

is to profit the Middle Eastern oil sheiks

in the manner of the DeBeers diamond business model

The actual "climate cycle" is a very large-scale matter

predating the Industrial Revolution and the use of "fossil fuels"

The "science" behind the panic has been skewed in the manner of a Dale Myers animation

so as to keep oil prices up

We follow the money by looking to Gore's clients

It's the clients, not the science

Magda Hassan
09-28-2013, 09:52 AM
Yes, Gore who lay down and played dead in the 2000 election and a man who has never done a single thing of meaningful consequence for the environment while he was in office but was set upon us as a fully fledged saviour for the cap and traders. God only knows how much of a carbon footprint he has created touring the world touting his spiel for Wall Street. Let alone the hot air he talks.

Jim Hackett II
09-28-2013, 10:50 AM
Am I finally going blind or is that certificate's signature the Ed Teller, buddy of ST member Strauss?

Just that Dr. Ed. Teller signed off on anything would be a warning proceed with care sign to me.
Not very popular with others of academia after he chose sides with the remade AEC.
I bet he would fit with the deceivers.

Magda Hassan
09-28-2013, 11:00 AM
Am I finally going blind or is that certificate's signature the Ed Teller, buddy of ST member Strauss?

Just that Dr. Ed. Teller signed off on anything would be a warning proceed with care sign to me.
Not very popular with others of academia after he chose sides with the remade AEC.
I bet he would fit with the deceivers.
Does look like it doesn't it Jim? But I don't have another of his signatures to compare with. The whole petition is suspect though.

David Guyatt
09-28-2013, 02:23 PM
yet the ice is of record size, increased at both poles



I didn't know that Phil. It's quite a damning fact, in fact. If you see what I mean, I mean?

Lauren Johnson
09-28-2013, 05:00 PM
yet the ice is of record size, increased at both poles



I didn't know that Phil. It's quite a damning fact, in fact. If you see what I mean, I mean?

Phil, you always have a source for what you say. You need to source this. Everything I have read about the ice pack up north is the opposite. Antarctica is far more complex.

Albert Doyle
09-28-2013, 07:03 PM
yet the ice is of record size, increased at both poles





Disproven on Climate Crock. A thin layer of ice grew during the winter but the overall mass of Arctic ice continues to decrease at the level correctly shown by monitoring. The thick layer of multi-year ice continues to drop at alarming rates as does the Greenland ice sheet melting and Antarctic ice sheet calving. Geesh guys, what planet are you living on?

Greg Burnham
09-28-2013, 07:14 PM
Just to be clear, Magda, I never have denied climate change. Climate change is as old as dirt. I have, on the other hand, questioned the theory that same is becoming catastrophic by human activity. Can humans cause catastrophic change to the climate? I doubt it, but I don't know for sure. What I do know for sure is that the evidence is still unsettled. At this juncture nobody knows. The "proofs" being offered are specious yet presented as conclusive. They are not. You and I might not be as far apart on this topic as it first appeared...

================================================== =======

And now it's global COOLING! Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year

533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012
BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013
Publication of UN climate change report suggesting global warming caused by humans pushed back to later this month

By DAVID ROSE (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=&authornamef=David+Rose)
PUBLISHED: 18:37 EST, 7 September 2013 | UPDATED: 13:45 EST, 28 September 2013

The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.
A chilly Arctic summer has left 533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 29 per cent.
Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/28/article-2415191-185A43E400000578-982_640x365.jpg
HOW NSIDC GOT ITS FIGURES WRONG AND THEN KEPT QUIET Since publication of the original version of this article, the US source of the figures – the NASA-funded National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) - was discovered to have made a huge error and then quietly corrected the figure without mentioning it.
On September 4, NSIDC, based at the University of Colorado, stated on its website that in August 2013 the Arctic ice cover recovered by a record 2.38 million sq km – 919,000 sq miles – from its 2012 low.
News of this figure was widely reported – including by Mailonline - on September 8. But on September 10, the NSIDC quietly changed it to 1.38 million sq km (533,000 sq miles) – and replaced the original document so the old figure no longer shows up on a main Google search. It can now only be found on an old ‘cached’ page.
The figures in this article have now been corrected.
Prompted by an inquiry from ‘green’ blogger Bob Ward, the NSIDC’s spokeswoman Natasha Vizcarra said the mistake was a ‘typographical error’, telling him: ‘There are no plans to make a statement on the change because it was not an error in the data.’



The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year. More than 20 yachts that had planned to sail it have been left ice-bound and a cruise ship attempting the route was forced to turn back.
Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century – a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading.
The disclosure comes 11 months after The Mail on Sunday triggered intense political and scientific debate by revealing that global warming has ‘paused’ since the beginning of 1997 – an event that the computer models used by climate experts failed to predict.
In March, this newspaper further revealed that temperatures are about to drop below the level that the models forecast with ‘90 per cent certainty’.
The pause – which has now been accepted as real by every major climate research centre – is important, because the models’ predictions of ever-increasing global temperatures have made many of the world’s economies divert billions of pounds into ‘green’ measures to counter climate change.
Those predictions now appear gravely flawed.
The continuing furore caused by The Mail on Sunday’s revelations – which will now be amplified by the return of the Arctic ice sheet – has forced the UN’s climate change body to reconsider its position.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was due in October to start publishing its Fifth Assessment Report – a huge three-volume study issued every six or seven years. It will hold a pre-summit in Stockholm later this month.
THERE WON'T BE ANY ICE AT ALL! HOW THE BBC PREDICTED CHAOS IN 2007Only six years ago, the BBC reported that the Arctic would be ice-free in summer by 2013, citing a scientist in the US who claimed this was a ‘conservative’ forecast. Perhaps it was their confidence that led more than 20 yachts to try to sail the Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific this summer. As of last week, all these vessels were stuck in the ice, some at the eastern end of the passage in Prince Regent Inlet, others further west at Cape Bathurst.

Shipping experts said the only way these vessels were likely to be freed was by the icebreakers of the Canadian coastguard. According to the official Canadian government website, the Northwest Passage has remained ice-bound and impassable all summer.

The BBC’s 2007 report quoted scientist Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, who based his views on super-computer models and the fact that ‘we use a high-resolution regional model for the Arctic Ocean and sea ice’.

He was confident his results were ‘much more realistic’ than other projections, which ‘underestimate the amount of heat delivered to the sea ice’. Also quoted was Cambridge University expert
Professor Peter Wadhams. He backed Professor Maslowski, saying his model was ‘more efficient’ than others because it ‘takes account of processes that happen internally in the ice’.

He added: ‘This is not a cycle; not just a fluctuation. In the end, it will all just melt away quite suddenly.’



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/08/article-2415191-1BAED5FF000005DC-408_638x431.jpg
Leaked documents show that governments which support and finance the IPCC are demanding more than 1,500 changes to the report’s ‘summary for policymakers’. They say its current draft does not properly explain the pause.
At the heart of the row lie two questions: the extent to which temperatures will rise with carbon dioxide levels, as well as how much of the warming over the past 150 years – so far, just 0.8C – is down to human greenhouse gas emissions and how much is due to natural variability.

More...

Ready for lift-off: Virgin's SS2 spacecraft reaches the STRATOSPHERE - and carrier confirms that commercial space flights are 'on track' for 2014 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2413666/Ready-lift-Virgins-SS2-spacecraft-reaches-STRATOSPHERE--carrier-confirms-commercial-space-flights-track-2014.html)
'One small step towards a brighter future for all': Kirobo goes down in history by becoming the first robot to talk in space (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2412138/Kirobo-goes-history-robot-talk-space.html)
Riddle of the African 'fairy circles' solved? Patches of barren land are down to grasses competing for water, claims scientist (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2412480/African-fairy-circles-solved-Circles-grasses-competing-water-claims-scientist.html)


In its draft report, the IPCC says it is ‘95 per cent confident’ that global warming has been caused by humans – up from 90 per cent in 2007.

This claim is already hotly disputed. US climate expert Professor Judith Curry said last night: ‘In fact, the uncertainty is getting bigger. It’s now clear the models are way too sensitive to carbon dioxide. I cannot see any basis for the IPCC increasing its confidence level.’
She pointed to long-term cycles in ocean temperature, which have a huge influence on climate and suggest the world may be approaching a period similar to that from 1965 to 1975, when there was a clear cooling trend. This led some scientists at the time to forecast an imminent ice age.
Professor Anastasios Tsonis, of the University of Wisconsin, was one of the first to investigate the ocean cycles. He said: ‘We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/08/article-2415191-1BAED746000005DC-112_638x341.jpgThen... NASA satellite images showing the spread of Arctic sea ice 27th August 2012


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/08/article-2415191-1BAED742000005DC-727_638x345.jpg...And now, much bigger: The same Nasa image taken in 2013



‘The IPCC claims its models show a pause of 15 years can be expected. But that means that after only a very few years more, they will have to admit they are wrong.’

Others are more cautious. Dr Ed Hawkins, of Reading University, drew the graph published by The Mail on Sunday in March showing how far world temperatures have diverged from computer predictions. He admitted the cycles may have caused some of the recorded warming, but insisted that natural variability alone could not explain all of the temperature rise over the past 150 years.
Nonetheless, the belief that summer Arctic ice is about to disappear remains an IPCC tenet, frequently flung in the face of critics who point to the pause.
Yet there is mounting evidence that Arctic ice levels are cyclical. Data uncovered by climate historians show that there was a massive melt in the 1920s and 1930s, followed by intense re-freezes that ended only in 1979 – the year the IPCC says that shrinking began.
Professor Curry said the ice’s behaviour over the next five years would be crucial, both for understanding the climate and for future policy. ‘Arctic sea ice is the indicator to watch,’ she said.

Phil Dragoo
09-28-2013, 07:55 PM
We have seen an exchange of "inconvenient emails" and now see a false accusation of forgery withdrawn and a "it's-just-a-joke" substitu


Arctic Graphs:
Arctic Sea Ice Extent – 15% or greater:
(note as of 7/9/13 NSIDC has stopped producing the graph without standard deviation, and automatically inserts the SD envelope no matter which image URL is used. This is related to the issue on display here (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/07/watching-the-deniers-makes-hilarious-goof-while-accusing-wuwt-of-doctoring-nsidc-images/))

I submit the alarmist hysteria is produced by the cabal blamed for the denial

In the rush to defend the earth its adherents insure that the people JFK sought to help with cheap and plentiful energy are kept suppressed

It is a masterstroke of tactical business acumen, replacing the Cold War with a Oh Dear It's Hot looking-glass model

"Complex?"

Watts has an entire page of updating graphs

which must be viewed with such caveats as he presents at the link

http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/

When the people have only sandals and bare hands to scratch at the earth

Walter Duranty will gush at the rosy-cheeked cherubs and beaming peasants

Greg Burnham
09-29-2013, 12:43 AM
We have seen an exchange of "inconvenient emails" and now see a false accusation of forgery withdrawn and a "it's-just-a-joke" substitu


Arctic Graphs:
Arctic Sea Ice Extent – 15% or greater:
(note as of 7/9/13 NSIDC has stopped producing the graph without standard deviation, and automatically inserts the SD envelope no matter which image URL is used. This is related to the issue on display here (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/07/watching-the-deniers-makes-hilarious-goof-while-accusing-wuwt-of-doctoring-nsidc-images/))

I submit the alarmist hysteria is produced by the cabal blamed for the denial

In the rush to defend the earth its adherents insure that the people JFK sought to help with cheap and plentiful energy are kept suppressed

It is a masterstroke of tactical business acumen, replacing the Cold War with a Oh Dear It's Hot looking-glass model

"Complex?"

Watts has an entire page of updating graphs

which must be viewed with such caveats as he presents at the link

http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/

When the people have only sandals and bare hands to scratch at the earth

Walter Duranty will gush at the rosy-cheeked cherubs and beaming peasants

Great data, Phil! Not to rub it in, but it's graphs like these that make me grateful to live in San Diego. It appears that we are heading into a (naturally occurring) cooling cycle, as expected.
Burrr...

Magda Hassan
09-29-2013, 01:26 AM
5332

Lauren Johnson
09-29-2013, 04:28 AM
We have seen an exchange of "inconvenient emails" and now see a false accusation of forgery withdrawn and a "it's-just-a-joke" substitu


Arctic Graphs:
Arctic Sea Ice Extent – 15% or greater:
(note as of 7/9/13 NSIDC has stopped producing the graph without standard deviation, and automatically inserts the SD envelope no matter which image URL is used. This is related to the issue on display here (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/07/watching-the-deniers-makes-hilarious-goof-while-accusing-wuwt-of-doctoring-nsidc-images/))

I submit the alarmist hysteria is produced by the cabal blamed for the denial

In the rush to defend the earth its adherents insure that the people JFK sought to help with cheap and plentiful energy are kept suppressed

It is a masterstroke of tactical business acumen, replacing the Cold War with a Oh Dear It's Hot looking-glass model

"Complex?"

Watts has an entire page of updating graphs

which must be viewed with such caveats as he presents at the link

http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/

When the people have only sandals and bare hands to scratch at the earth

Walter Duranty will gush at the rosy-cheeked cherubs and beaming peasants

Great data, Phil! Not to rub it in, but it's graphs like these that make me grateful to live in San Diego. It appears that we are heading into a (naturally occurring) cooling cycle, as expected.
Burrr...

The problem with these graphs is that they largely reference area, not volume. Here is an example of a volume graph, which is by far the more accurate and reliable method of analysis.

5333

Certainly, there has been a recent increase in area, but the volume increase has not come close to reversing any trend.

Phil Dragoo
09-29-2013, 07:56 AM
The price of gasoline, petrol if you will, has doubled in CONUS the past five years

This means the oil sheiks need sell half as much to profit as much

JFK in Donald Gibson (and elsewhere) wished to make energy cheap and plentiful--the cabal wishes it dear and scarce

in the manner of the DeBeers diamond paradigm

Coal will be made scarce in CONUS but China builds more coal plants each week

Clinton put Utah coal off limits for the benefit of Riady & Riady aka LIPPO to benefit them, his donors

Gore profits through carbon credits and is very careful to safeguard his Middle Eastern clients

Richard Clarke who as much as anyone made 9/11 possible is an agent of UAE

The climate hysteria is the next model after the Cold War now that the War on Terror has become an embarrassment

It was a joint venture of Gore and Chernomyrdin

Now comes Putin to Tehran to finalize the next reactor deal--aren't we seeing China Syndrome in Fukishima?

Why then is there not outrage over the Iran reactor?

Grants are only available to those who further climate tension, the hand of Gladio making all things increase in price

As ethanol is subsidized as a "substitute" the world will find food becomes so dear as to starve even more

The Malthusians mentioned by Donald Gibson, the extreme enviromentalists who were among JFK's chief opponents are winning

They have had to skew the data, and their Chinese finger handcuff has the idealists on board

Enriching the very cabal they demonize with their "Occupy" movement

Magda Hassan
09-29-2013, 08:18 AM
Well, Israel is pretty outraged at Iran's reactor but not on environmental grounds. They'd be cool with a Tehran Fukushima any way it comes. I just think it should all be decommissioned. Everywhere. But you are right about the (DeBeers) cartel. They would charge us for the air we breath if they could.

Albert Doyle
10-02-2013, 09:38 PM
Article covering the recent ice gain:



http://climatecrocks.com/2013/09/09/another-year-another-sea-ice-recovery/