National Post Caught Lying x 2 regarding Global Warming

[Catchme]

Now, for you National Post believers, who have used the National Post to try and bolster you disbelief in Global Warming, need to realize you were lead down a false path.

SOLAR ACTIVITY AND GLOBAL WARMING

The article by Lawrence Solomon, which portrays me as a denier of global warming, is a slanderous fabrication. I have always maintained that the current episode of warming that we are experiencing is caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, and that global temperatures will rise much further unless steps are taken to halt the burning of fossil fuel. Compared to these effects, the influence of variations in solar magnetic activity is unimportant, however interesting it may be to astrophysicists like me.

For further details see the Press Release on the University of Cambridge website

Nigel Weiss

This is the apology from todays' National Post:

Apology to Dr. Nigel Weiss

Nigel Weiss, professor of astrophysics at the University of Cambridge, believes that the warming trend in the Earth's climate is caused by greenhouse gases produced by human activities and that the effect of a potential future reduction in solar activity would not reverse or cancel out that trend, but might have a small effect in mitigating it. He has held those views for several years. Incorrect information appeared in a column in the Financial Post on Feb. 2. The National Post withdraws any allegation that Dr. Weiss is a global warming "denier" and regrets the embarassment caused him in the Feb 2. column and a further column on Feb 9

Smarmy apology, that does not address the truth as Dr Weiss stated it, I hope he sues Can West Global's pants off.

[B. Max]

Now, for you National Post believers, who have used the National Post to try and bolster you disbelief in Global Warming, need to realize you were lead down a false path.

The fact is it doesn't change a thing.

[scribblet]

Now, for you National Post believers, who have used the National Post to try and bolster you disbelief in Global Warming, need to realize you were lead down a false path.

The fact is it doesn't change a thing.

Neither does it change the false path that the sky is falling crowd are leading us down. Heck, Alaska was way colder than average this year, those polar bears had to light camp fires.

[ScottSA]

Apparently we are on track for the coldest April in 19 years in BC.

[B. Max]

While in correction mode.

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/04/11/...available-soon/

The correction to the paper

Lyman, J. M., J. K. Willis, and G. C. Johnson (2006), Recent cooling of the upper ocean,

Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L18604, doi:10.1029/2006GL027033

will be available soon. The cooling will be shown to have been removed; however, the warming of the 1990s and up to 2002 will be shown not to have persisted. This will still be a challenge for the global climate modelers to explain, since the IPCC perspective of global warming requires a more-or-less monotonic increase in Joules within the climate system, in the absence of a major volcanic eruption

[Catchme]

While in correction mode.

Excellent link ty, but I suspect you do not undertsand what it was you were reading, and perhaps you should have read the whole page.

[BubberMiley]

I don't see why the global warming deniers feel it's necessary to misquote reputable scientists and dig out pseudo-ones just to get their point across. Why not be open about their nihilist inclinations and their desire to bring capitalism to its natural fruition by producing the most possible wealth as quickly as possible? It's like they feel guilty or something.

[B. Max]

While in correction mode.

Excellent link ty, but I suspect you do not undertsand what it was you were reading, and perhaps you should have read the whole page.

I understand it quite well. The point has been made. Hansen and his computer models just took another hit. Not that they needed another hit to knock them out of the field of scientific fact.

[M.Dancer]

Apparently we are on track for the coldest April in 19 years in BC.

Which is irrelevant. Climate change is measured in far longer time spans than a month and in far greater areas than BC. Equally irrelevant is that January was the warmest on record in Toronto.

Friend of mine a few years ago got this nifty fireplace that shot out a gazillion BTUs of heat.....he couldn't figure out why the rsdt of his house was so cold and his furnace had to work harder....

[ScottSA]

Apparently we are on track for the coldest April in 19 years in BC.

Which is irrelevant. Climate change is measured in far longer time spans than a month and in far greater areas than BC. Equally irrelevant is that January was the warmest on record in Toronto.

Friend of mine a few years ago got this nifty fireplace that shot out a gazillion BTUs of heat.....he couldn't figure out why the rsdt of his house was so cold and his furnace had to work harder....

Global warming is measured in the time span most conducive to making it sound credible. We've heard that it's been warmer for the last ten years, the last 50 years, and a lie that it's been never been warmer for the last thousand years. Yet everytime a hot day comes along, we're reminded again that global warming is here. Of course, when a cold day comes along, that's an indication of "increasing weather variability" due to global warming. What rot.

[Canadian Blue]

ScottSA you do realize that there is more to global warming than two words right?

[B. Max]

ScottSA you do realize that there is more to global warming than two words right?

Tell us all about it.

[Catchme]

Again please do inform yourself the link maxb does not say what you say it does.

Here again below, is a link to a graph that shows the temp of the planet going back 1000 years. The anhilists, that would wish the destruction of all in order, in their minds that they be swept up in the rapture, should not be listened to. they do not have anyones best interests at heart, they are too busy residing in a state of delusion of their own granduer.

Moreover, the site where the link to the graph belongs to a prominent Republican pundit.

Cooking Our Fish Bowl: Climate Change Report Paints Grim Future

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/

[CrazyCanuck]

Does anyone else find it disturbing that global warming/climate change/weather variablity, or whatever you wanna call it, has taken over as the number one "problem"(and i use the term loosely) in the developed world? What happened to people caring about people and the human issues that affect most of the world? I know that the climate-is-changing-oh-my-god-! crowd wants us to believe that it is the most severe human problem we face with their doomsday predictions, but doesn't that seem a little extreme, especially since most evidence they have to support this claim is based on models of assumption and speculation?

I would think that struggling to eat and drink and not get sick should be considered by most rational people to be the most severe problem facing the human world. Since when has health care and the ability to eat and drink safe food and water become so irrelevent?

If it is truly a global issue, how are we expected to even begin to combat it when most of the world is ravaged by civil war, crazy dictators, political oppression, famine and an inability to compete in a globalized economy? Most people in this world are struggling to live each and every day. And most of this struggle is caused directly by other human beings. How are we supposed to fix a problem concerning our relationship with the earth without first fixing the problems concerning our relationship with each other?

I know....we can fix the famine issue by....converting our food crops into fuel crops so we can continue to not use the bus or the train. That should fix things, right?

[fellowtraveller]

Smarmy apology, that does not address the truth as Dr Weiss stated it, I hope he sues Can West Global's pants off.

What are you talking about sunshine?

The Post did not address the truth or fiction of global warming in any way. They apologized for mispresenting the Doctors position, they did not present any position of their own. Seems to me to be acting responsibly by publishing the retraction.

[CrazyCanuck]

I don't get the point of the thread. Are you trying to say that because the National Post misquoted a pro-global-warming scientist, admitted their mistake, it somehow bolsters the claims of pro-global-warming scientists?

[B. Max]

Again please do inform yourself the link maxb does not say what you say it does.

Here again below, is a link to a graph that shows the temp of the planet going back 1000 years. The anhilists, that would wish the destruction of all in order, in their minds that they be swept up in the rapture, should not be listened to. they do not have anyones best interests at heart, they are too busy residing in a state of delusion of their own granduer.

Moreover, the site where the link to the graph belongs to a prominent Republican pundit.

Cooking Our Fish Bowl: Climate Change Report Paints Grim Future

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/

The link says what it says, which is what I say it says.

The cooling will be shown to have been removed; however, the warming of the 1990s and up to 2002 will be shown not to have persisted.

Well the graph you linked to looks like the hockey stick. Which was created by a proven fraudster, Mann. Which is still trotted out by the climate alarmists as coming from the horses mouth, but actually it was from the other end.

The `Hockey Stick'

Dr Michael Mann of the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts was the primary author of the GRL paper, and in one scientific coup overturned the whole of climate history [16].

Using tree rings as a basis for assessing past temperature changes back to the year 1,000 AD, supplemented by other proxies from more recent centuries, Mann completely redrew the history, turning the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age into non-events, consigned to a kind of Orwellian `memory hole' [22]. Fig.4 shows Mann's revision of the climatic history of the last millennium.

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

[Catchme]

No it doesn't, anyway, not much needs to be said, as you all kno diferently in your minds and hearts, you are just wanting the destruction of the world.

[shoggoth]

The cooling will be shown to have been removed; however, the warming of the 1990s and up to 2002 will be shown not to have persisted.

While many skeptics cited and based arguments on the cooling in the original paper without scrutinizing the paper. Eg:

Lyman et al (2006), using updated data from the same source, show that the period 2003-2005 involves a sudden ocean cooling at a rate of -1.0 ± 0.3 Wm-2 over the period, which means Hansen's model is calculating wrongly in both magnitude and sign. No one expected this loss of one-fifth of the heat stored in the ocean since 1955 and no model predicted it. Its cause is unclear but we appear to be witnessing Earth dumping heat to space via the atmosphere.

...

Lyman et al. go so far as to state: Including the recent downturn, the average warming rate for the entire 13-year period is 0.33 ± 0.23 W/m2 (of the Earth's total surface area). Think about that for a moment -- that's just 0.1 - 0.56 Wm-2.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/What_Watt.htm

realclimate was pointing out that the cooling mentioned in the original paper may be incorrect:

Going back to the data, are there any potential problems? Well, as addressed by the authors, this time frame is the period when the ARGO floating profilers really start to be important in improving the coverage of data (look at the difference in coverage in their figure 8 between 2002 and 2005). The profilers have clearly been the best thing to happen to ocean observations in decades. Not using the profilers gives a smaller recent change - but with increased error bars because of the deterioration of the sampling. Additionally, some parts of the ocean, particularly the Arctic are still not being sampled sufficiently. These effects may yet prove to be part of the story.

What about any supporting data? One problem is that if the ocean has lost heat at the suggested rate, then the thermal exapansion part of recent sea level rise should have decreased (i.e. sea level should have dropped). Overall, sea level however has continued to rise unabated according to the altimeter satellites. The only way to reconcile the results would be to have had a sharp compensating increase in freshwater from the ice sheets adding to sea level (from 0.7 mm/yr to 2.9 mm/yr). This is conceivable (though unlikely), but clearly would not be good news!

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...latest-numbers/

Here's another example of a common skeptic argument taking actual research without mentioning the caveats. Coincidentally it's an article from the National Post:

Look to Mars for the truth on global warming

February 02, 2007

Global warming extends to Mars, where the polar ice cap is shrinking, where deep gullies in the landscape are now laid bare, and where the climate is the warmest it has been in decades or centuries.

...

NASA's findings in space come as no surprise to Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov at Saint Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory. Pulkovo -- at the pinnacle of Russia's space-oriented scientific establishment -- is one of the world's best equipped observatories and has been since its founding in 1839. Heading Pulkovo's space research laboratory is Dr. Abdussamatov, one of the world's chief critics of the theory that man-made carbon dioxide emissions create a greenhouse effect, leading to global warming.

"Mars has global warming, but without a greenhouse and without the participation of Martians," he told me. "These parallel global warmings -- observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth -- can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance."

The sun's increased irradiance over the last century, not C02 emissions, is responsible for the global warming we're seeing, says the celebrated scientist, and this solar irradiance also explains the great volume of C02 emissions.

...

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.h...359a5c7f723&k=0

But look what came up recently:

Dust storms causing global warming on Mars?

Updated: 5:41 p.m. ET April 4, 2007

Temperature increase could be shrinking the planet's polar ice caps

Shifting dust storms on Mars might be contributing to global warming there that is shrinking the planet's southern polar ice caps, scientists say.

Computer simulations similar to those used to predict weather here on Earth show that the bright, windblown dust and sand particles affects Mars’ albedo—the amount of sunlight reflected from the planet’s surface.

The research, detailed in the April 5 issue of the journal Nature, suggests these albedo variations play an important role in the climate of Mars. It could also potentially explain how global dust storms are triggered on the red planet.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17952631/

Kind of blows their false dilemma "if co2 isn't causing it, it must be the common factor - the sun" argument out of the water. Notice they didn't offer any mention of the possibility of something like dust storms causing it.

But realclimate already pointed out this possibility over a year and a half ago:

Global warming on Mars?

Recently, there have been some suggestions that "global warming" has been observed on Mars (e.g. here). These are based on observations of regional change around the South Polar Cap, but seem to have been extended into a "global" change, and used by some to infer an external common mechanism for global warming on Earth and Mars (e.g. here and here). But this is incorrect reasoning and based on faulty understanding of the data.

...

Globally, the mean temperature of the Martian atmosphere is particularly sensitive to the strength and duration of hemispheric dust storms, (see for example here and here). Large scale dust storms change the atmospheric opacity and convection; as always when comparing mean temperatures, the altitude at which the measurement is made matters, but to the extent it is sensible to speak of a mean temperature for Mars, the evidence is for significant cooling from the 1970's, when Viking made measurements, compared to current temperatures. However, this is essentially due to large scale dust storms that were common back then, compared to a lower level of storminess now. The mean temperature on Mars, averaged over the Martian year can change by many degrees from year to year, depending on how active large scale dust storms are.

...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

Gives a constrast of reliability. When I read both the above articles on realclimate for the first time, in both cases I suspected they were just trying to wriggle out of it by giving unlikely possilities. But in both cases the further research has yeilded results in the directions they mentioned. It's not so much that realclimate mentioned what eventually came true (that could just be luck mixed with giving all the possibilities). But it does show which sources are less reliable precisely because they didn't even mention the possibility of what eventually turned out to be the case.

[B. Max]

Look to Mars for the truth on global warming

But look what came up recently:

Dust storms causing global warming on Mars?

Updated: 5:41 p.m. ET April 4, 2007

Temperature increase could be shrinking the planet's polar ice caps

Shifting dust storms on Mars might be contributing to global warming there that is shrinking the planet's southern polar ice caps, scientists say.

Computer simulations similar to those used to predict weather here on Earth show that the bright, windblown dust and sand particles affects Mars’ albedo—the amount of sunlight reflected from the planet’s surface.

Might is not scientific fact, and to suggest that computer models are involved makes it laughable. So I guess that clinches it. Dust storms on earth cause global warming.