Global Warming backdown

[waldo]

Another day, another global warming mishap.

UN's climate link to hurricanes in doubt

Link

Looks like the corruption continues.

another day... another Shady go-to of his favourite British tabloid "journalist", "Jonathan Leake"... looks like the Shady "intellectual dishonesty" continues.

even outside the climate change related debate, we recently experienced firsthand the way the British tabloid press handled coverage of the Vancouver Olympics... it's no surprise Shady would find solace in linking to and parroting anything - anything - the British tabloids print. Shady has no ethics - no morality - no honesty.

British Newspapers Make Things Up

[waldo]

another day... another Shady go-to of his favourite British tabloid "journalist", "Jonathan Leake"... looks like the Shady "intellectual dishonesty" continues.

even outside the climate change related debate, we recently experienced firsthand the way the British tabloid press handled coverage of the Vancouver Olympics... it's no surprise Shady would find solace in linking to and parroting anything - anything - the British tabloids print. Shady has no ethics - no morality - no honesty.

British Newspapers Make Things Up

the backlash against the British tabloids is building; interested parties are collectively gathering the evidence against the British tabloid "journalists"... be they David Rose, Piers Akerman... or Shady's favourite - Jonathan Leake

one of those bloggers, Tim Lambert (amongst others), has recently started to catalogue the fabrications of Jonathan Leake. If you're not familiar with Tim Lambert, he's a legitimate Australian scientist, recently of note involved in demolishing the denier poster-boy Monckton during a much touted/publicized debate in Australia. The dishonesty, the lies, the fabrication of Jonathan Leake... Shady's most favoured go-to British tabloid journalist:

- Shady's most recent display of his "intellectual dishonesty"... concerning Jonathan Leake's fabrication concerning tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes): Leakegate + The Australian's War on Science 46

- the original Leakegate (re: Amazon forest)

- Leakegate scandal grows

- Leakegate scandal gets bigger

- Leakegate: the case for fraud

- Journalismgate

- Leakegate: Jonathan Leake caught misrepresenting another scientist

- Leakegate: Leake verballed Richard Dawkins

- Leakegate: On stovepiping and plagiarism

- Leakegate: Yes, Leake was responsible for that bogus story about the carbon footprint of Google

- Leakegate: How Jonathan Leake concocted 'Africagate'

- Leakegate: "not based on any research"

[waldo]

hey Simple... that is a verbatim copy of exactly what you posted in this earlier Dec18 post - here... you know - part of your repeated ongoing nonsense about the, as you state, "world is cooling". Which kind of contradicts your other oft repeated claims that you accept that AGW warming is occurring but, apparently, not to your qualifications (whatever the hell they may be???). Simple, how do you keep these competing cooling vs. warming positions straight within your "thinking" process?

of course, you know that this, your latest post, can only be followed up with the same response I provided to that earlier Dec post - here ... you know, over that series of posts where you touted Environment Canada data... only to receive your comeuppance... with an Environment Canada data trending graphic - here ... surely you remember that thread, right Simple? The thread where you were soundly schooled in temperature trending... remember?

Very Simple (pardon the pun) if you'd keep up with the conversation. The world has been warming for several centuries - about 1 degree F every century. The temperature goes up for what appears to be a 25 or 30 year cycle and then down for the same amount of time....but there has always been a net increase of about 1 degree per century. Contrary to the IPCC models, some scientists agree that we are already into another cycle of cooling.....or at least a "lack of warming".

- put up the scientific basis for your repeated claims of a 30 year cycle... really, c'mon Simple... you can do better than Easterbrook It seems you would prefer to stand out there in the denier wastelands rather than accept any of the assorted temperature warming trends that have been presented to you... be they surface or satellite based - go figure!

- which "scientists" do you refer to in your claim, "some scientists agree that we are already into another cycle of cooling" - which scientists, Simple?

- another of your favoured no-support provided repeated claims, speaks to what you presume IPCC models projected. Let's also end this piece of Simple nonsense... which IPCC models are you referring to and what contradictions do you state exist? Simple - which models and what contradictions?

Pretty Simple Waldo.....I believe that the planet is warming - as any informed person would agree....but I am skeptical that humans have contributed so much that the planet is in peril and we are all doomed unless we take immediate and drastic action. Did I make myself clear?

it's not your real position based on all your sideline nonsense... but please, go forward... make your skeptic/denier case - you've certainly made no legitimate attempt to do so.

Waldo....you do not seem to have ANY position other than spouting whatever the IPCC and their mouthpiece RealClimate have to say. Your own parroting using the word "meme" shows how much you are enslaved to RealClimate. Use your brain Waldo - think for yourself - question things - that's science.

for what it's worth, until recently I rarely linked to any blogs... over the many months of these many climate change related threads I doubt if I've actually linked to the RC website more a few times. It's clear why RC is your and other deniers target... for the same reason the IPCC is your target. Because they both present a representative accounting of the state of climate science - you just don't like what that representative state says about mankind's influence on climate change. I most certainly link to many IPCC reports and quote from them - since those reports reflect the state of the science (at the time the reports were published). Tell me Simple, what evidence of your questioning things have you ever presented here within MLW... as I've said many times, it's quite telling that the self-avowed skeptics can only ever bring forward attacks against the state of the science... somewhere in their apparent "questioning", they can find nothing... nothing... that suggests to them that AGW climate change is happening to the degree that the overwhelming scientific consensus accepts - go figure!

[waldo]

More on the need to re-evaluate temperature measurements - the details are in the article - I've just posted the summary.....and yes Waldo - it's by Roy Spencer who just must be in the pocket of big oil, right?

Link: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/02/spurious-warming-in-the-jones-u-s-temperatures-since-1973/

I certainly hesitate in giving any 'real' legitimacy to the creationist Spencer; however, let's play:

- his article that you quote from mentions McKitrick & Michaels, where Spencer states, "The recent paper by McKitrick and Michaels suggests that a substantial UHI influence continues to infect the GISS and CRU temperature datasets". I'm sure we can have some fun here!... McKitrick the much scientifically challenged economist tied to the hip with Steve McIntyre and Michaels... of the Cato Institute.

- let's start with a most humorous and telling historical account that surely paints McKitrick for the 'bumbler' he is... yes, a fine source for Spencer to showcase in your linked article Simple:

-

McKitrick screws up yet again

- where McKitrick presents failed calculations and improperly calculates statistical significance.

-

Corrections to the McKitrick (2003) Global Average Temperature Series

- where McKitrick messed up an analysis of the number of weather stations

-

More McKitrick

- where McKitrick shows a minimal understanding of climate

-

Tech Central Station flunks Physics

- where McKitrick fails basic thermodynamics

-

Corrections to the McKitrick (2002) Global Average Temperature Series

- where McKitrick improperly handles missing weather stations

-

You Dirty Errata

- where McKitrick invents his own temperature scale

[Shady]

- Leakegate scandal grows

- Leakegate scandal gets bigger

- Leakegate: the case for fraud

- Journalismgate

- Leakegate: Jonathan Leake caught misrepresenting another scientist

- Leakegate: Leake verballed Richard Dawkins

- Leakegate: On stovepiping and plagiarism

- Leakegate: Yes, Leake was responsible for that bogus story about the carbon footprint of Google

- Leakegate: How Jonathan Leake concocted 'Africagate'

- Leakegate: "not based on any research"

Replace the term Leakgate with Climategate, and the name Jonathan Leake with Phil Jones or Michael Mann, and you could use the same headlines to accurately describe the IPCC!!!!

[waldo]

More on the need to re-evaluate temperature measurements - the details are in the article - I've just posted the summary.....and yes Waldo - it's by Roy Spencer who just must be in the pocket of big oil, right?

Link: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/02/spurious-warming-in-the-jones-u-s-temperatures-since-1973/

let's continue Simple... having just laid a bit of a foundation for the spectacularly inept McKitrick, and particularly as UHI was one of your favoured talking points in the past, let's not forget to highlight at least one previous post concerning UHI from other MLW threads; I'm partial to this one - here

that specific McKitrick & Michaels (2007) paper mentioned in your linked Spencer article was based on and a continuation of their earlier 2004 paper... which was thoroughly debunked by:

- this Benestad papers comment:

Are temperature trends affected by economic activity? Comment on McKitrick & Michaels (2004)

- this article from the very early beginnings of RC:

Are Temperature Trends affected by Economic Activity?

that specific McKitrick & Michaels (2007) paper mentioned in the Spencer article you linked to was thoroughly debunked by:

- this 2009 Schmidt paper:

Spurious correlations between recent warming and indices of local economic activity

- this article from RC:

Are Temperature Trends affected by Economic Activity (II)

somehow... your (Spencer's) go-to guys that presume to challenge the surface temperature records, based on UHI, fail to account for basic issues/factors like... spatial autocorrelation & local forcing agents (e.g. tropospheric ozone, black carbon, etc.). Their attempts to correlate warming to economic activity fail... and, of course, in their most presumptuous claim concerning warming, they fail to acknowledge the plethora of independent evidence for ocean warming, snow cover changes, sea ice extent loss, etc.

and these guys... McKitrick & Michaels... are the wizards that deniers want to rely on

[waldo]

Replace the term Leakgate with Climategate, and the name Jonathan Leake with Phil Jones or Michael Mann, and you could use the same headlines to accurately describe the IPCC!!!!

clearly... it makes no difference to you - none whatsoever. You are presented a mountain of evidence that categorically shows the depths that British tabloid 'journalism' has sunk to. These are your go-to sources for your banal posts where you spout off another "failure of the day". These are your fake, failed and dishonest sources that you keep presenting. And you have no qualms about doing so... yes, that "intellectual dishonesty" thread was a perfect fit for you. You are a complete troll and proud of it.

[waldo]

That's three "iconic" symbols of Global Warming that have been relegated to the trash can:

1) The melting of the Himalayas

2) Hurricanes and severe storms

3) Polar Bears dying

It wouldn't be such a big deal if the Alarmists had not used each of these examples as examples of how Global Warming is an immediate threat to mankind and we must take drastic and immediate action.

- concerning glacier melt, it's been pointed out to you previously and you won't take up the challenges put to you:

- the IPCC response to the WG2 statement was presented to you to challenge - that IPCC response clearly included exactly what the IPCC summary report (of all workgroup reports) presented concerning the official claim/position of the IPCC on glacier melt. Rather than challenge that IPCC response... rather than challenge the actual official claim/position of the IPCC on glacier melt, you scurry away parroting a baseless talking point about a two sentence statement in a WG2 subgroup report... a most frivolous and inconsequential statement. When you are equally challenged to state the impact that WG2 statement actually had... you've got nothing - you present nothing.

- you were also presented with a recent December presentation given to the AGU; one that included the most current scientific knowledge on the state of the Himalayan glaciers... presenting a most convincing state of the overall melt. You were asked to challenge this presentations content. Rather than take up the challenge you, similarly, scurry away parroting a baseless talking point about a two sentence statement in a WG2 subgroup report

- concerning, as you say, "hurricanes and severe storms", the claims within the IPCC report are consistent with the state of the science... as previously thrown back at Shady's most recent parroting of the British tabloid 'journalist', Johnathan Leake... a comparison of the dishonest British tabloid article's lies and misrepresentations versus what the actual IPCC AR4 report states

- concerning polar bears??? C'mon, take your best shot... step up, Simple.

[Keepitsimple]

let's continue Simple... having just laid a bit of a foundation for the spectacularly inept McKitrick, and particularly as UHI was one of your favoured talking points in the past, let's not forget to highlight at least one previous post concerning UHI from other MLW threads; I'm partial to this one - here

that specific McKitrick & Michaels (2007) paper mentioned in your linked Spencer article was based on and a continuation of their earlier 2004 paper... which was thoroughly debunked by:

- this Benestad papers comment:

Are temperature trends affected by economic activity? Comment on McKitrick & Michaels (2004)

- this article from the very early beginnings of RC:

Are Temperature Trends affected by Economic Activity?

that specific McKitrick & Michaels (2007) paper mentioned in the Spencer article you linked to was thoroughly debunked by:

- this 2009 Schmidt paper:

Spurious correlations between recent warming and indices of local economic activity

- this article from RC:

Are Temperature Trends affected by Economic Activity (II)

somehow... your (Spencer's) go-to guys that presume to challenge the surface temperature records, based on UHI, fail to account for basic issues/factors like... spatial autocorrelation & local forcing agents (e.g. tropospheric ozone, black carbon, etc.). Their attempts to correlate warming to economic activity fail... and, of course, in their most presumptuous claim concerning warming, they fail to acknowledge the plethora of independent evidence for ocean warming, snow cover changes, sea ice extent loss, etc.

and these guys... McKitrick & Michaels... are the wizards that deniers want to rely on

Please don't refer to anything by Gavin Schmidt or the Real Climate website......they are one and the same and in the employ of government largesse. We already know that the cabal of IPCC gatekeepers have corrupted the peer review process. That being said, I will say that there continue to be differing views on how to measure surface temperatures....which leads me back to one of my original objectives....now that much of the raw data is available for use, we should shortly be seeing analyses of strictly rural temperatures - unemcumbered by urban influences and the resulting "adjustments". Lets just look at 100 (or more) rural stations from the last 50 years and see what kind of trend is extrapollated.

[waldo]

I'm sure that his data is just as good as those scientists who are in the pocket of big government.

excellent! A new wrinkle... let's read more. Which governments are in on it? What are government's motives/rationale in complicity to present policy based on your presumed "scientific fraud"? Which scientists do you speak to... and more significant to your statement, how have these scientists managed to project their complicity across the complete global wide scientific community?

- which governments?

- what government motivations and rationale?

- which scientists?

- how did the scientists do it?

[waldo]

Please don't refer to anything by Gavin Schmidt or the Real Climate website......they are one and the same and in the employ of government largesse. We already know that the cabal of IPCC gatekeepers have corrupted the peer review process. That being said, I will say that there continue to be differing views on how to measure surface temperatures....which leads me back to one of my original objectives....now that much of the raw data is available for use, we should shortly be seeing analyses of strictly rural temperatures - unemcumbered by urban influences and the resulting "adjustments". Lets just look at 100 (or more) rural stations from the last 50 years and see what kind of trend is extrapollated.

it's a shame you similarly have difficulty with peer review, peer response and actual science.

you're an idiot... you've already been presented with scientific study that shows there is no UHI effect... studies that have shown there is no measurable distinction between rural versus urban stations... studies that have used Watts' (and his idiotic surfacestations.org project) own data to show there is no bias in the temperature record. You've also been shown examples that demolish any presumption on the effects of reduced weather stations... and most significantly, just in recent months/weeks several persons have independently taken up the challenge given the release of Watts (non-peer reviewed) SPPI report - here's one I particularly like: The 1990s station dropout does not have a warming effect... I talked of these guys previously - they've gone completely open source and updated the technology while, somehow, managing to replicate the complete NASA GISTEMP record/processing - you know, done what actual persons who might presume to challenge the temperature record would do... try to replicate it.

[Shady]

You are presented a mountain of evidence that categorically shows the depths that British tabloid 'journalism' has sunk to.

I could say the same of you regarding the mountain of evidence of corruption related to the IPCC and its so-called scientists.

But I'm wondering. Do you agree with Phil Jones' assessment that, in his own words, he "wrote some pretty awful emails?" Before you attack the British press again, those were his own and exact words. Do you agree with them? That he wrote some pretty awful emails.

Link

[waldo]

I could say the same of you regarding the mountain of evidence of corruption related to the IPCC and its so-called scientists.

But I'm wondering. Do you agree with Phil Jones' assessment that, in his own words, he "wrote some pretty awful emails?" Before you attack the British press again, those were his own and exact words. Do you agree with them? That he wrote some pretty awful emails.

Link

step up and make your case for corruption of the IPCC - what evidence?

at the end of the day, you only need to answer to yourself concerning your repeated linkage to British tabloid articles. In recent posts I've presented you clear evidence of the fake and dishonest journalism being practiced there. You need to ask yourself a very pointed question Shady... why do knowingly link to information sources you know are failed, that you know are presenting inaccurate, distorted, misrepresented, etc. claims? Are you that desperate to falsify the record - or do you simply not give a damn? Are you simply interested in casting any manner of doubt, any kind of uncertainty? Are you that personally challenged... are you that intellectually dishonest?

[Moonlight Graham]

Regarding the IPCC, this was all over the news last week:

UN to commission independent scientific inquiry into IPCC

UN climate body to appoint scientists to review climate change panel as UK climate change secretary writes to Rajendra Pachauri to express concern over 'damaging mistakes'

Friday 26 February 2010

The UN is to commission an independent group of top scientists to review its climate change panel, which has been under fire since it admitted a mistake over melting Himalayan glaciers.

The experts will look at the way the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) operates and will recommend where they think changes are needed. The panel will be part of a broader review of the IPCC, full details of which will be announced by the UN next week.

Nick Nuttall, of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) told Reuters: "It will be [made up of] senior scientific figures. I can't name who they are right now. It should do a review of the IPCC, produce a report by, say, August and there is a plenary of the IPCC in South Korea in October. The report will go there for adoption."

He added: "There's no review panel at the moment. Yesterday, it was clear from the member states roughly how they would like this panel to be – fully independent and not appointed by the IPCC, but appointed by an independent group of scientists themselves."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/26/ipcc-independent-scientific-review

[bush_cheney2004]

Regarding the IPCC, this was all over the news last week:

Great, but they need fewer "expert" scientists and more "expert" engineers and mathematicians!

[Shady]

I wonder if waldo agrees with the IPCC, that they've made 'damaging mistakes?' Ya hear that waldo? Damaging mistakes! And that ain't no British tabloid talkin! It's your precious IPCC!

[Keepitsimple]

I wonder if waldo agrees with the IPCC, that they've made 'damaging mistakes?' Ya hear that waldo? Damaging mistakes! And that ain't no British tabloid talkin! It's your precious IPCC!

He's waiting for the Real Climate website to put their spin on it so he can do his usual parrot routine.

[waldo]

I wonder if waldo agrees with the IPCC, that they've made 'damaging mistakes?' Ya hear that waldo? Damaging mistakes! And that ain't no British tabloid talkin! It's your precious IPCC!

your reading comprehension is only bettered by your intellectual dishonesty... read it again, oh challenged one So a British politician raises concerns and references the 2 liner WG2 subgroup report Himalayan statement as an example... as before... as always - inconsequential and trivial - a non issue.

of course one of you septic types could actually take up those various challenges put to you concerning glacier melt - but of course you won't... you can't. You know - venture beyond your linked cut&paste routine.

we've already talked of a couple of options put forward, unofficially, by various scientists involved in past IPCC report processes... for example, suggestions to tighten up the overall coordination between the various subgroups involved in the reports... or, make a clear break to more clearly isolate the WG1 physical sciences from the other subgroups, particularly the 'social science' focused WG2 report. Of course, the latter would be the last thing septics would prefer since it would most certainly deflect much of the septic/denier agenda to attempt to discredit the actual (physical) science via all the inconsequential/trivial matters that have come forward via the social science based WG2 group.

on a more general basis you septic types could answer another challenge you keep avoiding - keep ignoring. Show the impacts those couple of WG2 statements have had... actual impacts, not the after-the-fact manufactured distortion and fabrication. Again, ya got nuthin! Again, for emphasis... those couple of statements that were inaccurate... cause that's all there's been. Everything else has been manufactured by the dishonest British tabloid press - most of it by one 'journalist' in particular - Jonathan Leake (and a preceding post I put up lays his dishonest handiwork out for all to see, article by article).

as I stated in my preceding post Shady... the one you're afraid of - the one you're ignoring... step up and make your case for corruption of the IPCC - show the evidence, Shady. You were quite bold in spouting off about corruption - make your case and show your evidence.

[waldo]

Regarding the IPCC, this was all over the news last week:

and you'd like to say what about it?

[waldo]

He's waiting for the Real Climate website to put their spin on it so he can do his usual parrot routine.

are you still smarting? I didn't expect you to pop-up so soon... thought you would be beavering away trying to answer the last questions/requests put to you - you know, these ones:

- put up the scientific basis for your repeated claims of a 30 year cycle... really, c'mon Simple... you can do better than Easterbrook

It seems you would prefer to stand out there in the denier wastelands rather than accept any of the assorted temperature warming trends that have been presented to you... be they surface or satellite based - go figure!

- which "scientists" do you refer to in your claim, "some scientists agree that we are already into another cycle of cooling" - which scientists, Simple?

- another of your favoured no-support provided repeated claims, speaks to what you presume IPCC models projected. Let's also end this piece of Simple nonsense... which IPCC models are you referring to and what contradictions do you state exist? Simple - which models and what contradictions?

like I said Simple, it's a shame you have difficulty with peer review, peer response and actual science. Simple... when you rail on about RC, is that the point where you've decided to outright drop your self-avowed skeptic position charade? It's really hard to imagine why a legitimate skeptic would have difficulty with a blog that deals in actual science - one that presents the state of climate science today? Go figure!

[wyly]

like I said Simple, it's a shame you have difficulty with peer review, peer response and actual science. Simple... when you rail on about RC, is that the point where you've decided to outright drop your self-avowed skeptic position charade? It's really hard to imagine why a legitimate skeptic would have difficulty with a blog that deals in actual science - one that presents the state of climate science today? Go figure!

debate science with science wow there's a new idea who would've guessed blogs and tabloids aren't science...

[Keepitsimple]

like I said Simple, it's a shame you have difficulty with peer review, peer response and actual science. Simple... when you rail on about RC, is that the point where you've decided to outright drop your self-avowed skeptic position charade? It's really hard to imagine why a legitimate skeptic would have difficulty with a blog that deals in actual science - one that presents the state of climate science today? Go figure!

You still don't have a clue about what the debate is all about. As you continue to spew the word "denier", it becomes more and more the last refuge of the true deniers - and that is the increasingly isolated religious "warmists" - like yourself. I have said many times - Climate Change is real and humans contribute to warming (or less cooling) - whatever the current cycle of climate change might present to us. Does that make me and millions of others deniers? The only thing we are skeptical about is the amount of contribution that humans make over and above the natural warming that has taken place for centuries. That's why it's useless to debate the science - most of it is very good - but there is no definitive proof that the extra 30 PPM that we have added over the last 15-20 years have had any statistically significant effect over and above natural climate change - after all, it was Phil Jones who said there has been no statistically significant increase in global temperatures for the past 15 years. The chickens are coming home to roost. Here's an article from yes - the National Post - that describes why the IPCC and warmists/alarmists have lost so much credibility over the past year.....and if you can't admit that they have lost credibility - you're just burying your head in the sand.

Trust us, we're experts

.....snip

The spin doctors establish a priesthood of experts who alone are in a position to adjudicate truth, and who the rest of us must blindly follow. Once such a societal mind-set has been established, the character, motivation and moral rectitude of those who stray from orthodoxy can be traduced. Gone entirely is the notion that honest agents of goodwill can disagree. Those who dissent from the prevailing orthodoxy can be righteously slandered, for dissent only arises for reasons which are irrational, dishonest, avaricious or pathological.

Thus a sort of intellectual fraud is perpetuated on society, one which operates in opposition to a scientific stance. Science is skeptical, questioning, disinterested and somewhat cynical. It is also fundamentally democratic, in that all claims must be brought before the bar of scientific reason. Rather than taking anything on faith, the scientifically literate demand that all claims be backed with publicly available evidence.

Yet until a whistle-blower released a series of emails from the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit, the prevailing public mood was that the climate science was "settled"; that there was a "consensus" in the scientific community; and that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report was rock solid, based on rigorous peer-reviewed literature.

The "media pseudo-environment" had been established in spades. Those who strayed from the orthodoxy were labeled "deniers," a term insinuating that they are on a moral par with those who deny the Holocaust. In this same spirit of self-righteous indignation, an emotional Elizabeth May compared Stephen Harper to Neville Chamberlain, in that both men had capitulated in the face of a great evil.

But we have now been allowed to peer behind the curtain of the climate science priesthood to witness a steady stream of humiliating revelations. Taken together, these new disclosures have seriously undermined the credibility of the IPCC. The much vaunted "peer-reviewed" science apparently consists, in turns, of idle speculation, the unpublished dissertation of a student and simple factual errors. Contrary to the IPCC report, Himalayan glaciers are not going to melt by 2035, nor is global warming going to cut African crop production by up to 50% by 2020. And, contrary to what the IPCC claims, 50% of the Netherlands does not lie below sea level, a simple factual error which speaks to a woeful lack of rigour during the editorial process.

.....snip

It is time to put behind us the preaching of a priesthood who would have us believe that the debate can only proceed according to their pre-determined script. In the spirit of genuine science, we need to listen to the voices of honest dissent; we need to admit to the debate those mavericks whose views arise from a spirit of scientific disinterestedness, rather than allegiance to the party line.

In other words, it is time to move the climate change debate beyond the intellectual equivalent of a one-party state, where dissidents who stray from the approved orthodoxy are either sent for reeducation or put up against the wall. The climate change "experts" were wildly successful in setting up a "media pseudo-environment." Thankfully, their time is past.

Link: http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=2644185

Edited March 5, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[eyeball]

The spin doctors establish a priesthood of experts who alone are in a position to adjudicate truth, and who the rest of us must blindly follow.

Just like they do economists, geopolitical strategists, criminologists, political scientists, etcetera etcetera, etcetera.

Same crap, different bucket, similar outcomes.

[waldo]

You still don't have a clue about what the debate is all about. As you continue to spew the word "denier", it becomes more and more the last refuge of the true deniers - and that is the increasingly isolated religious "warmists" - like yourself. I have said many times - Climate Change is real and humans contribute to warming (or less cooling) - whatever the current cycle of climate change might present to us. Does that make me and millions of others deniers? The only thing we are skeptical about is the amount of contribution that humans make over and above the natural warming that has taken place for centuries. That's why it's useless to debate the science - most of it is very good - but there is no definitive proof that the extra 30 PPM that we have added over the last 15-20 years have had any statistically significant effect over and above natural climate change - after all, it was Phil Jones who said there has been no statistically significant increase in global temperatures for the past 15 years.

that debate... the one you obviously know nothing about... isn't about 30 ppm over the last 15-20 years. It's about the last 150 years, where mankind has driven the CO2 concentration in the air from 280 ppm to more than 385 ppm... a value that is 38 percent higher than the highest value measured for over the previous 800,000 years... and still rising! At least you could get your numbers and reference time line right, in the debate you would presume to school others about

and you have the nerve - the gaul - to speak to the Jones statistical reference statement? Why are you so desperate to cherry-pick from one of the multiple surface and satellite temperature records? Why don't you tell us the statistical significance figures over that same period for all the other temperature records, surface & satellite? Why don't you show how desperate you really are?

why are you so desperate to hang your whole argument... which is what you've just done... on your cherry-picking of a single temperature record (CRU's) over a less than representative 15 year trending period interval? Why don't you tell us what the statistical significance for the CRU temperature data record is for 16 years... for anything greater than 15 years? In your own statement, as quoted here, you seem fit to reference a 15-20 year period... for whatever reasons. However, you (and your co-parrot, Shady) somehow want to zero in on a purposely isolated 15 year max interval for CRU data - huh! If you want to play silly bugger, why don't you show your desperation by stating the CRU data's statistical significance figure for anything greater than 15 years... c'mon - step up... show your desperation. Why don't you acknowledge that CRU has always been the temperature record that shows the least warming... since it doesn't include station related data from the poles, the regions that have shown the most warming - why don't you show your desperation and acknowledge that distinction that the CRU data holds over other temperature records?

your Concern Troll climate science debate presence is well established and very prominently displayed within this, your latest post. Since you seem to want to base your whole argument on the cherry picking of the CRU data's 15 year short-term trending statistical significance figure, here's the magic smoking gun premise for you Simple. We've already got 2 months of 2010 in the can - at the end of 2010... we can roll on over your favoured cherry-picked 15 year interval period that your desperation so wants to hang onto... we can move that interval period from 1995-2009 to 1996-2010. What will you say at the end of 2010 Simple? By the way, since you seem to (also) favour quoting from Roy Spencer, what do you suppose the UAH data shows for January and February 2010? Why... I do believe that January 2010 is the warmest January on record within the complete UAH data history... and, oh my... February 2010, is the second warmest February on record within the complete UAH data history! What will your desperation have to say at the end of 2010 Simple?

Simple, you really should get your head out of Anthony Watts ass - 2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade... you really should get beyond the nonsense Watts' is spewing over surface records. You might want to have a look at satellite records... or... you know... other empirical evidence of AGW climate change. Oh, look Simple - we have a new Crock video out... just for you!

[Shady]

This is a great illustration of the total hypocrital behavior of the AGW true-believers. They continuously preach against the referencing of blogs, because they're quote "not scientifc."

your favoured denail blogs are simply offering you up the tripe trimmings of British... ahem... tabloid "journalists", David Rose, Johnathan Leake, Piers Ackerman, etc.

bloggers are not thousands of scientists...

Shady's in-depth research probably hit upon an older link during his scouring of denier blog sites.

crazies relying on lazy dishonest tabloid journalism and fake blog scientists

which denier blog is fronting this one for Shady?

It is equally heartening to see you begin to directly front for Riverwind's favoured go-to denier blogger.

debate science with science wow there's a new idea who would've guessed blogs and tabloids aren't science...

And what do we continuously get from them? Blogs as proof. That latest example from where's waldo. Apparently man-made global warming is real, and happening at this very minute because a graphic artist from a blog made a video saying so!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9SGw75pVas

Peter Sinclair

Peter Sinclair is a long time advocate of environmental awareness and energy alternatives. An award winning graphic artist, illustrator, and animator, Mr. Sinclair runs Greenman Studio from his home in Midland, MI.

Mr. Sinclair’s syndicated cartoons have appeared worldwide, and his work has been profiled in numerous publications, including the New York Times. He is the producer of the YouTube series, "Climate Denial Crock of the Week".

Blog

Congratulations where's waldo, you're this weeks Maple Leaf Forum hypocrite of the week!