Quote :

"Well that's your dogmatic position"

Me dogmatic? Do you mean that I, and everyone else, do not have adequate grounds to accept the scientific concensus of global warming?

You want to talk about dogmatic? This cretin is a prime example:

Quote :

"You have a 7-year cooling trend since 2003. sorry, buddy. your fantasies are a delusion."

He thinks he has outsmarted the scientific establishment despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and nonexistant supporting evidence. And he calls me delusional.

I respect skepticism. I am a skeptic. But you cannot call the issue of global warming ambiguous when one side has virtually no credible evidence supporting it, while the other has a mountain of evidence. There is such a thing as being TOO skeptical. You have to make a judgement call at some point, or the world will stand still.


[Edited on October 31, 2009 at 7:59 PM. Reason : ]

10/31/2009 7:49:56 PM

hahah. steve levitt got owned:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/an-open-letter-to-steve-levitt/

10/31/2009 8:10:24 PM

That would be the number of solar cells needed if the sun shown 24 hours a day, which it does not, and was 100% intensity for all those hours, which it does not. As such, you would easily need six fold more solar cells than calculated, which would emit 40 trillion watts of waste heat compared to the nuclear or coal's 6.66 trillion.

That said, it is still a stupid calculation, as 40 trillion watts is still dwarfed by the heat being emitted by man's existing alterations to land use (black roads, dark roofs, farmland, etc) as evidenced by the large urban heat island effect, which has alone increased the planets temperature measurably.

10/31/2009 8:32:16 PM

^^^nonexistent evidence hmmm? Take a look at these 450 scientific papers skeptical of "man-made" global warming. Yup, 450. I will admit I have not read them all.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

10/31/2009 8:40:49 PM

^^would the waste heat increase, since before it was assuming 24 hour sun, and factoring that into the waste as well? it would seem that it would only increase the area over which solar cells would have to placed.

[Edited on October 31, 2009 at 8:43 PM. Reason : .]

10/31/2009 8:43:06 PM

Quote :

"All of them detected the upward trend that is apparent when periods longer than a decade are examined" I'm not surprised that you didn't see what I was talking about, dumbass."

I see that after nearly 30 pages, you still don’t get what climate change issues are all about.

10/31/2009 9:27:00 PM

Quote :

"nonexistent evidence hmmm?"

I was speaking specifically about the global cooling myth burro is grasping onto.

Speaking broadly about global warming, I said:

Quote :

"one side has virtually no credible evidence supporting it"

[Edited on October 31, 2009 at 10:43 PM. Reason : And by the way, this is completely beside the point.]

10/31/2009 10:41:05 PM

^^^ Nice. You are right, assuming fixed panel efficiency, although there were six times more of them, that would not change the waste heat calculation.

11/1/2009 1:46:18 AM

Quote :

"one side has virtually no credible evidence supporting it"

IMO, the undeniable politicization of the issue is enough to destroy the credibility of pro-global warming research.

11/1/2009 1:57:30 AM

Quote :

"hahah. steve levitt got owned: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/an-open-letter-to-steve-levitt/"

that article made so many mathematical errors that I had trouble keeping a straight face reading it.

New coal plants are upwards of 50% efficient, not 33%. he doesn't calculate that solar cells don't work at least half the time and aren't producing full output but for a small portion of the time the sun is out. He also says absolutely nothing about the storage issue, which the only technology that currently exists for this is pumped hydro. Pumped hydro has a slew of inefficient processes to go through, and you can't find a realistic location to build pumped hydro near the deserts where solar makes the most sense. I found it humorous how he tried to use Google to back up the really simple facts with no bearing on his calculations throughout his article, yet the numbers he pulled out of his ass were the ones that made the most significant impact on his comparisons.

11/1/2009 1:43:02 PM

assuming even that your somewhat irrelevant points are true, does that invalidate his points in any way?

and i'm not even sure whether he accounted for using only daylight hours or not. he doesn't say one way or the other.

11/1/2009 1:48:21 PM

Quote :

"IMO, the undeniable politicization of the issue is enough to destroy the credibility of pro-global warming research."

So, you reject all climate-related science because the issue has been politicized? I don't understand your reasoning behind that. Lots of issues dealing with science have been politicized.

But, science, even climate science, is typically peer-reviewed and can be independently verified. This tends to keep any bias or political agenda from tainting it. Sure, there are cases of corruption, but is in no way a valid reason to reject all science. That would be holding an excessive degree of skepticism.

Do you truly think that climate science cannot be trusted, or is it that you can't make up your mind about the issue because you don't fully understand it?

[Edited on November 1, 2009 at 1:57 PM. Reason : ]

11/1/2009 1:56:46 PM

are you fucking obtuse? of course they refute his points. He's trying to make the argument about the efficiency of solar cells vs. coal plants for their waste heat generation, and he comes right out the gates using a 3:1 heat to generation ratio for coal instead of 2:1. He uses solar efficiencies that are over 300% higher than real world situations, and he doesn't bother to address the storage issue. For energy storage, you have to pump water into a reservoir using transmission lines and pumping stations with their own losses, and then you lose water through evaporation and losses into the water table. Then you have to run the water back through a hydro generator that has it's own losses. With coal, you just burn it when you need it instead of having to store it. Even if you disregard the fact that pumped hydro isn't feasible to integrate with solar farms unless you build EHV transmission lines (345-765kV), the system from a purely mathematical stance isn't very efficient.

11/1/2009 2:00:57 PM

he also tries to make a point about land coverage needed on the planet for solar. He obviously understands nothing about base load vs. peak load, or else he would realize just how stupid his little map was. Also, he doesn't do anything to address that you can't build a solar field where the panels butt up to each other. You have to have room for maintenance for them.

The man obviously wrote an article about something he has no understanding of. He may understand a little about climate, but he obviously doesn't understand jack shit about the power industry.

11/1/2009 2:05:55 PM

^^^ like I said before, I understand the scientific process, but if the UN, Al Gore, and the entire media industry up and picked a unifying theory of everything and started shoving it down everyone's throat, I wouldn't believe that crap either.

11/1/2009 4:39:25 PM

I'm not sure I understand. I wouldn't expect anyone to take the word of the UN, Al Gore, and the media about scientific matters either. But that's not where climate science originates.

11/1/2009 5:29:46 PM

^^^and you're not really addressing the point he was trying to refute. that levitt was saying that the fact that the solar panels are all black heat up the earth. the map was just to show how much of the earth's surface those panels would actually take up. that was the crux of what he was trying to say. he also made the point that aside from the initial impact of coal, it also has a lasting impact. but the point of the post was more about refuting that solar would cause warming (of any significant measure) just from its coverage over the earth.

[Edited on November 1, 2009 at 5:49 PM. Reason : .]

11/1/2009 5:47:47 PM

I am addressing that point, over and over and over again. He uses badd numbers and failed logic over and over again to try to justify solar not being worse than coal, and I'm pointing out those instances.

His comments regarding CO2 have no evidence or numbers to back them up, so he has to rely on a blanket statement of how evil CO2 is for global warming. He has no way to quantify any heating effect CO2 may or may not have, yet he uses this to try to validate why solar cells are better than coal plants even though they produce more waste heat.

11/1/2009 7:05:18 PM

Quote :

"He has no way to quantify any heating effect CO2 may or may not have, yet he uses this to try to validate why solar cells are better than coal plants even though they produce more waste heat."

Huh? I assume he knows the heating effects of CO2 (the 4 watts per km^2) from IR radiative transport calculations. I agree he provides an overly optimistic picture for solar cells but I have a hard time seeing how his general point of CO_2 heating dominates the waste heat from power generation could be wrong.

11/1/2009 7:38:23 PM

the 4W/m^2 is a simple calculation straight out of thermodynamics. It's what he does with that number that doesn't add up. He assumes all our our energy consumption comes from coal, which it does not. Natural Gas and Petroleum plants both produce less CO2 for the same amount of energy. His CO2 reabsorption numbers have no explanation for where they came from, yet they make the largest impact on his overall calculations.

he could have probably made his point by using real world numbers and shown that solar power has a slight advantage over coal, but he went out of his way to exaggerate the numbers to come up with his drastic difference.

11/1/2009 11:05:19 PM

Quote :

"How They Are Turning Off the Lights in America by Edwin X Berry On October 31, 2009, the once largest aluminum plant in the world will shut down. With it goes another American industry and more American jobs. The Columbia Falls Aluminum Company in Montana will shut down its aluminum production because it cannot purchase the necessary electrical power to continue its operations. How did this happen in America? America was once the envy of the world in its industrial capability. America's industrial capacity built America into the most productive nation the world had ever known. Its standard of living rose to levels never before accomplished. Its currency became valuable and powerful, allowing Americans to purchase imported goods at relatively cheap prices. America grew because of innovation and hard work by the pioneers of the industrial revolution, and because America has vast natural resources. A great economy, as America once was, is founded on the ability to produce electrical energy at low cost. This ability has been extinguished. Why? Columbia Falls Aluminum negotiated a contract with Bonneville Power Administration in 2006 for Bonneville to supply electrical power until September 30, 2011. But, responding to lawsuits, the 9th US Circuit Court ruled the contract was invalid because it was incompatible with the Northwest Power Act. Therefore, the combination of the Northwest Power Act and a US Circuit Court were the final villains that caused the shutdown of Columbia Falls Aluminum. But the real reasons are much more complicated. Why was it not possible for Columbia Falls Aluminum to find sources of electricity other than Bonneville? We need to look no further than the many environmental groups like the Sierra Club and to America's elected officials who turned their backs on American citizens and in essence themselves, for they too are citizens of this country. These officials bought into the green agenda promoted by the heavily funded environmental groups. Caving to pressure, they passed laws and the environmental groups filed lawsuits that began turning off the lights in America. The dominos stated to fall. They began stopping nuclear power plants in the 1970's. They locked up much of our coal and oil resources with land laws. They passed tax credits, which forces taxpayers foot the bill for billionaire investors to save taxes by investing in less productive wind and solar energy projects. In 1988, the Environmental Protection Agency called a meeting of atmospheric scientists and others with environmental interests. I remember well the meeting I attended in the San Francisco Bay Area. The meeting was in a theater-like lecture room with the seating curved to face the center stage and rising rapidly toward the back of the room. Attending were many atmospheric scientists whom I knew from Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Stanford Research Institute and some local colleges. The room became silent when a man walked up to the lectern. He told us that the next big national problem was global warming. He explained how human carbon dioxide emissions were trapping the earth's radiation like a greenhouse and causing the atmosphere to heat beyond its normal temperature. He said this will lead to environmental disasters. He finished by saying the EPA will now concentrate its research funding toward quantifying the disasters that would be caused by our carbon dioxide. The room was silent. I was the first to raise my hand to ask a question, "How can you defend your global warming hypothesis when you have omitted the effects of clouds which affect heat balance far more than carbon dioxide, and when your hypothesis contradicts the paper by Lee in the Journal of Applied Meteorology in 1972 that shows the atmosphere does not behave like a greenhouse?" He answered me by saying, "You do not know what you are talking about. I know more about how the atmosphere works than you do." Not being one to drop out of a fight, I responded, "I know many of the atmospheric scientists in this room, and many others who are not present but I do not know you. What is your background and what makes you know so much more than me?" He answered, "I know more than you because I am a lawyer and I work for the EPA." After the meeting, many of my atmospheric science friends who worked for public agencies thanked me for what I said, saying they would have liked to say the same thing but they feared for their jobs. And that, my dear readers, is my recollection of that great day when a lawyer, acting as a scientist, working for the federal government, announced global warming. Fast forward to today. The federal government is spending 1000 times more money to promote the global-warming charade than is available to those scientists who are arguing against it. Never before in history has it taken a massive publicity campaign to convince the public of a scientific truth. The only reason half the public thinks global warming may be true is the massive amount of money put into global-warming propaganda. The green eco-groups have their umbilical cords in the government's tax funds. Aside from a few honest but duped scientists living on government money, the majority of the alarms about global warming – now called "climate change" because it's no longer warming – come from those who have no professional training in atmospheric science. They are the environmentalists, the ecologists, the lawyers and the politicians. They are not the reliable atmospheric scientists whom I know. Nevertheless, our politicians have passed laws stating that carbon dioxide is bad. See California's AB32 which is based upon science fiction. (For readers who take issue with me, I will be happy to destroy your arguments in another place. In this paper, we focus on the damage to America that is being caused by those promoting the global-warming fraud.) In the year 2000, America planned 150 new coal-electric power plants. These power plants would have been "clean" by real standards but the Greens managed to have carbon dioxide defined legally as "dirty" and this new definition makes all emitters of carbon dioxide, including you, a threat to the planet. Therefore, using legal illogic, the Sierra Club stopped 82 of these planned power plants under Bush II and they expect it will be a slam-dunk to stop the rest under Obama. And now you know the real reason the Columbia Falls Aluminum Company had to shut down. America stopped building new power plants a long time ago. There is now no other source where the company can buy energy. Our energy-producing capability is in a decline and it is taking America with it. I used to belong to the Sierra Club in the 1960's. It used to be a nice hiking club. In the late 1960's the Sierra Club began turning its attention toward stopping nuclear power. Then I quit the Sierra Club. It continues to prosper from the many subscribers who think they are supporting a good cause. What they are really supporting is the destruction of America brick by brick. The Sierra Club and similar organizations are like watermelons – green on the outside, red on the inside. They are telling us we have no right to our own natural resources, and in doing so they are sinking America. Inherent in ecology are three assumptions: "natural" conditions are optimal, climate is fragile, and human influences are bad. Physics makes no such assumptions. By assuming climate is fragile, the global warming supporters have assumed their conclusion. In fact, the climate is not fragile. It is stable. The non-adherence to physical logic in the global-warming camp is what makes many physical scientists say that global warming is a religion. So we have a new age religion promoted by environmentalists, incorporated into our laws and brainwashed into our people that is now destroying America from the inside. Like a vast ship, America is taking a long time to sink but each day it sinks a little further. The fearsome day awaits, when America, if not quickly recovered by its real citizens, will tilt its nose into the water to begin a rapid and final descent into oblivion ... her many resources saved for whom? October 24, 2009 Edwin X Berry, PhD is an atmospheric physicist and certified consulting meteorologist with Climate Physics, LLC in Montana"

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/berry-e1.1.1.html

11/3/2009 11:46:56 AM

DENIER!!!1

11/3/2009 11:52:11 AM

What's ironic about that article is the author decries others for their arrogance only to be a pompous douchebag himself. I will give him props though for tossing in as many generalizations about environmentalism as I've seen crammed into one piece.

11/3/2009 2:04:28 PM

^ pretty much

^^ considering the blatant factual errors in the article, that's an apt label. It's not surprising though that you aren't able to determine that.

[Edited on November 3, 2009 at 2:21 PM. Reason : ]

11/3/2009 2:20:56 PM

Quote :

"considering the blatant factual errors in the article, "

please enlighten us.

11/3/2009 2:35:25 PM

This thread has been going on for 26 pages, if truth and facts could enlighten you, you would be enlightened by now. I would take no less than Glenn Beck or Rush LImabaugh to start supporting climate change before we stop hearing idiots whine about some grand conspiracy by welfare climate scientists to trick people into believing that humans can affect our environment.

11/3/2009 2:39:41 PM

so, in short, you have no instances of fact. you are just blowing it out your ass. But, I suppose that you know more than this atmospheric scientist about atmospheric science, right?

Quote :

"I see that after nearly 30 pages, you still don’t get what climate change issues are all about."

I see that you still know how to construct men of straw. Which is what you did. I pointed out that none of the statisticians said there was a warming trend in the last decade.

11/3/2009 7:46:44 PM

^^Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh have too soft a position on global warming IMO, but thanks anyway. And I can't believe you said that, b/c I can say the same thing about you (26 pages of facts)

[Edited on November 3, 2009 at 9:51 PM. Reason : though to be honest i don't really know their positions.]

11/3/2009 9:51:04 PM

Quote :

"so, in short, you have no instances of fact."

No. In short, you aren't even worth arguing with because facts don't matter to you.

Quote :

"Some people cherry pick 1998. Not all. You have a 7-year cooling trend since 2003. "

You said this earlier. You say some people cherry pick, and then go and do it yourself. Why would anyone bother with you after that half-witted bullshit? I mean there's nothing anyone can say to you.

11/3/2009 10:20:38 PM

ok, then what year would you pick to show there is no cooling trend at all evident? 2001?

Quote :

"No. In short, you aren't even worth arguing with because facts don't matter to you. "

I could say the same about you...

11/3/2009 10:24:14 PM

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/26/tech/main5423035.shtml

Read it aloud if you have to. It isn't a matter of picking specific years. It is a matter of looking at moving 10-year averages and the overall decades-long trend of rising temperatures.

11/3/2009 10:53:01 PM

hahaha. So, you are resorting to CBS's NON PEER REVIEWED claim that a whopping four statisticians have disproved something. Really? and you claim that the deniers ignore science, lol

if fox news did a similar thing to disprove something you would be howling about it. come on, dude.

hell, the claim is that there has been cooling for seven years. how in the hell would you use a 10-year average to show that either way? We're looking at just seven years, for crying out loud!
Hell, I'll even let you start from 2001, and the trend is STILL negative. And 2001 is a low year!


wow, look at page 18 of this report
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/sept_09_report.pdf
In short, the UN is using a number that is an order of magnitude higher for Atmospheric CO2 Residence time than what just about every other major researcher says it is. I wonder why they would do that...

Talk about using consensus science, right?

11/3/2009 10:54:01 PM

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/05-loehleNEW.pdf

Quote :

"Global satellite data is analyzed for temperature trends for the period January 1979 through June 2009. Beginning and ending segments show a cooling trend, while the middle segment evinces a warming trend. The past 12 to 13 years show cooling using both satellite data sets, with lower confidence limits that do not exclude a negative trend until 16 years. It is shown that several published studies have predicted cooling in this time frame. One of these models is extrapolated from its 2000 calibration end date and shows a good match to the satellite data, with a projection of continued cooling for several more decades."

So, is THIS bunk? A different analysis of satellite trends, that shows a possible cooling trend. Oh wait, it's actually peer-reviewed, too. Which one should we believe... hmmm... Or, which one is more believable...

11/3/2009 11:41:44 PM

IT IS CREDIBLE BECAUSE I AGREE WITH IT

11/3/2009 11:52:10 PM

^^Just when I thought you provided a legitimately peer-reviewed study, I found out about the journal that published it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_and_Environment


Then I looked into the person who conducted the study, a Craig Loele of the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. And I find this:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Craig_Loehle

I read through the study, and thought it looked legit and was well-referenced. But after this, I'm skeptical of it. That's all I can say.

By the way, you really should make the effort to research your sources before getting all huffy about the credibility of something.

[Edited on November 4, 2009 at 3:17 AM. Reason : ]

11/4/2009 3:09:08 AM

Quote :

"So, you are resorting to CBS's NON PEER REVIEWED claim that a whopping four statisticians have disproved something. Really? and you claim that the deniers ignore science, lol if fox news did a similar thing to disprove something you would be howling about it. come on, dude."

CBS is not claiming anything. They are just presenting the article. The article was written by the staff of the ASSOCIATED PRESS. The analysis was done for them. This is made evident throughout the article. You would realize this if you had the reading comprehension above that of a pre-schooler.

If you want to question the credibility of the AP, be my guest. But they have more credibility to me than a guy with a degree in forestry who works for the Heartland Institute.

[Edited on November 4, 2009 at 3:58 AM. Reason : []

11/4/2009 3:57:30 AM

when in doubt, attack the source, right? Is there anything specifically that makes you say what I posted isn't valid, other than the source? Is the AP without peer-review more credible than this source with peer-review?

11/4/2009 7:54:36 AM

if only someone would invent some sort of forum where experts on subjects can publish their results, a 'journal' if you will...

11/4/2009 8:02:10 AM

Of course, carzak would never look into the financial or career interests of the scientists who release studies that "prove" global warming.... He agrees with them so he thinks they are credible.

11/4/2009 8:08:58 AM

It’s Official: Global Warming Alarmism is a Religion (at Least in the UK)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6494213/Climate-change-belief-given-same-legal-status-as-religion.html

Quote :

"In a landmark ruling, Mr Justice Michael Burton said that “a belief in man-made climate change … is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations”. The ruling could open the door for employees to sue their companies for failing to account for their green lifestyles, such as providing recycling facilities or offering low-carbon travel."

11/4/2009 1:35:36 PM

Quote :

"Of course, carzak aarronburro would never look into the financial or career interests of the scientists who release studies that "prove" deny global warming.... He agrees with them so he thinks they are credible."

Fixed it for you, Mr. Non-partisan.

11/4/2009 2:22:30 PM

is that a tacit concession?

[Edited on November 4, 2009 at 2:41 PM. Reason : s]

11/4/2009 2:40:37 PM

There are different degrees of partisan. You're still partisan.



[Edited on November 4, 2009 at 2:44 PM. Reason : Oh, okay, decided to edit that out? lol]

11/4/2009 2:43:17 PM

i'm partisan, but not a partisan.

Of course, carzak would never look into the financial or career interests of the scientists who release studies that "prove" global warming.... He agrees with them so he thinks they are credible.

[Edited on November 4, 2009 at 3:04 PM. Reason : s]

11/4/2009 3:04:24 PM

Quote :

"The federal government is spending 1000 times more money to promote the global-warming charade than is available to those scientists who are arguing against it. Never before in history has it taken a massive publicity campaign to convince the public of a scientific truth"

Does anyone think this is a false statement?

11/4/2009 3:36:17 PM

Not by itself. It is possible he is taking advantage of the maths. If Ross Perot gave a dollar to some guy holding a "global warming = hoax" sign while Al Gore gave $1000 to his own foundation then his assertion would be both true and ridiculously irrelevant.

11/4/2009 6:04:36 PM

True, but it is well documented how much the US alone has spent on global warming studies. Billions and billions. Add all the money the UN spends on it...you get the point.

11/5/2009 11:12:22 AM

Quote :

"Lawrence Solomon: Numbers racket Politicians the world over claim that 4,000 scientists believe in global warming. Depends on who’s counting By Lawrence Solomon In a speech yesterday, Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd explained why he is so certain that the science is settled on climate change. It stems from the number 4,000 — a number that the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used to publicize its last major report. “This is the conclusion of 4,000 scientists appointed by governments from virtually every country in the world,” asserted Mr. Rudd, in making his case that the planet is in peril. Unfortunately for Mr. Rudd, he has made a blunder in citing this number. As he can confirm by contacting the secretariat of the IPCC, the thousands of scientists upon whom he rests his case never endorsed the IPCC’s report. Rather, the secretariat will advise him — as the Secretariat advised me when I inquired in 2007 — that the great majority of those scientists were merely reviewers. Worse for Mr. Rudd, those scientists had reviewed only a fraction of the report. Worst of all, far from endorsing the IPCC’s conclusions, many of the reviewers turned thumbs down on the IPCC sections that they read and only a handful actually endorsed the IPCC’s claims that man-made global warming represents a threat to the planet. The upshot? Australia has turned its economy inside out largely on the basis of imagined endorsements. How could Rudd have made this mistake? He was tricked by the PR machine at the IPCC. Look at the accompanying illustration from a public relations flyer that the IPCC distributed and you can see how easy it is for an unsuspecting person to be tricked. The work of “2,500+ scientific expert reviewers, 800+ contributing authors, 450+ lead authors from 130+ countries” had culminated in one report, the flyer states. The not unreasonable implication that almost everyone drew was that those 3,750-plus experts and authors stood behind the IPCC’s views of impending doom. The rest is history. A tricked press reported those figures, often rounding the 3,750-plus people to 4,000. And then the public and the politicians such as Rudd were tricked, too. How many of those 3,750-plus people from 130-plus countries can the IPCC claim as true backers of its conclusions? An Australian analyst named John McLean scrutinized the lists that the IPCC used to arrive at its figures and found them to be riddled with duplications, such as the 383 authors who also acted as reviewers for the same sections in which their work appeared, and the authors and reviewers who were listed twice or thrice. Remove the duplications and the total number of authors plus reviewers drops from 3,750 to 2,890. The reviewers, as might be expected, made suggestions. In about 25% of the cases, the editors rejected the suggestions – another indication that the verdict on the IPCC’s report was far from unanimous. Most importantly, the great majority of the reviewers commented on chapters that dealt with historical or technical issues — matters that didn’t support the IPCC’s conclusions on man-made climate change. The exception was Chapter 9 — Understanding and Attributing Climate Change. An endorsement here would clearly be a bona fide endorsement of the IPCC’s conclusion. Chapter 9 had 53 authors and it received comments from 55 individual reviewers. Of the 55 individuals, four commented favourably on the entire chapter and three on a portion of the chapter. (To give you the flavour of these endorsements, reviewer David Sexton stated that “section # 9.6 I think reads pretty well for the bits I understand” and reviewer Fons Baede’s endorsement was “Chapter 9 SOD has improved considerably and is very readable and informative.”) The 53 authors and seven favourable reviewers represent a total of 60 people, leading McLean to conclude: “There is only evidence that about 60 people explicitly supported the claim” made by the IPCC that global warming represents a threat to the planet. Sixty scientists among the 130-plus countries that the IPCC cites amounts to one scientist for every two countries. Prime Minister Rudd needs to do his sums, just as John McLean and others have. There is no scientific consensus on climate change. There is no basis to undertake the radical economic changes that he and other western leaders propose. There is, on the other hand, a good reason for the public in Australia to balk at his radical plans — they are no longer taken in by the IPCC’s public relations department."

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/06/lawrence-solomon-numbers-racket.aspx

[Edited on November 9, 2009 at 12:04 PM. Reason : spacing]

11/9/2009 12:02:41 PM

http://ohjelmat.yle.fi/mot/taman_viikon_mot/transcript_english

Wow. The lack of scientific integrity of the pro-AGW "scientists" in this is fucking astounding. Refusing to release data to parties interested in reviewing the results. Failing to report a MAJOR change in the results of re-running the experiment. Non-random sample selections for a third run of the experiment, and an incredibly small sample-set at that.

Then there's this gem:

Quote :

"An Australian named Warwick Hughes had asked for the data and Warwick Hughes had published some articles that had been critical of how the temperature histories had been prepared, and Jones said 'Why should I send - we have twenty-five years invested in this, why should I send the data to you when your only objective is to find anything wrong with it?”, which is a very unscientific statement."

A scientist said that? Really?

11/11/2009 9:37:55 PM

where did you come across that? It's old news. Horrible yes! But I think that's been mentioned in one of these threads

11/12/2009 8:23:24 AM