Benford's law

"A metric ton of CO2 was trading at 15.08 euros on London’s European Climate Exchange on Nov. 22, after recovering from a record low of 1 euro cent on Nov. 30, 2007, amid oversupply."

The Emperor's new wardrobe will be expensive.
(the global 3rd world can afford it w/all it's new members)

Controlling mercury and SO2 emissions make sense. But CO2 is largely benign gas which should not be regulated. Besides cleaner technologies are offsetting CO2 emissions. Only last week one of the chief nobel laureates who worked on the IPCC said airborne CO2 probably doesn't cause global warming. Studies show CO2 follow the rise in global temperatures and not the other way around. You know the science of CO2 and climate is suspect when Governor Kulongoski (a good Koolaid drinker) has George Taylor's (Oregon state universtiy) axed for not fully supporting this suspect science.

So, no matter how you measure CO 2 the information is likely to be misapplied. SO 2, NOx, and Mercury are obvious pollutants, but Co2 which plants gulp down doesn't seem such an obvious pollutant. This is government reaching too much.

No matter what, THIS number is real and the one that makes it a matter of life & death: 350ppm.

Human-Made Climate Change: A Moral, Political and Legal Issue by Dr. James E. Hansen
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2010/201010_BluePlanet.pdf

More at http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/

There's not a lot of time to play musical chairs around it, either.

Mojo: No matter what, THIS number is real and the one that makes it a matter of life & death: 350ppm.
JK: Oh, give us a break - that has been so debunked, its surprising that anyone still spreads it. The earth has been above 350 in the past and nothing bad happened. But plants (think food) grew better.

BTW, I hope you know that 97% of the annual CO2 emission is from NATURE NOT MAN. And that CO2 doesn’t even cause most of the greenhouse warming. (H2O causes twice as much (or more) warming.)

Mojo: Human-Made Climate Change: A Moral, Political and Legal Issue by Dr. James E. Hansen
JK: Don’t miss Hansen’s claim that it is OK to lie to people:
Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as "synfuels," shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration.

No, Jimmy H., it NEVER was appropriate to lie to people by “Emphasis on extreme scenarios”

(Hansen even got even got caught fudging the climate numbers at NASA.)

This is the guy that claimed that he was muzzled from speaking out. His supervisor has a different story:
He was never muzzled ...
He thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988..
...some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results...
They have resisted making their work transparent ...
Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy..

You can find links to the original sources and more admissions of lying by scientists & Al Gore at: http://www.sustainableoregon.com/oktolie.html

Mojo: There's not a lot of time to play musical chairs around it, either.
JK: Actually man has not been shown to be the cause of global warming (that stopped 10-20 years ago).

Thanks
JK

AP – Thu Dec 2, 6:01 pm ET

CANCUN, Mexico (AFP) – Carbon emissions from fossil fuels may bear a greater risk for the marine environment than thought, with wide-ranging impacts on reproduction, biodiversity richness and fisheries, a report at the UN climate talks here on Thursday said.

Each year, billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2), the principal greenhouse gas, are absorbed by the sea and are very gradually turning the water more acidic, according to the study launched by the UN Environment Program (UNEP).
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101202/sc_afp/unclimatewarmingsea

Global CO2 Emissions Seen At Record Level In 2010 - Study
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/11/22/global-emissions-seen-record-level-study/

Mojo: CANCUN, Mexico (AFP) – Carbon emissions from fossil fuels may bear a greater risk for the marine environment than thought,
JK: Well DUH, this is the make or break conference for the global warming fraud. This is where the fraud of the century will probably be killed for good. OF COURSE, those standing to make millions from the fraud are going all out to dupe people one last time.

I hope you noted the use of the weasel work “may”. Look at most of the junk coming our of the alarmists - it usually is accompanied by words like “may”, “could” and “might”. Pure PR bull shat.

BTW, the claim (as usual a cover story in the, now discredited Nature) that the Antarctic is warming just got debunked by a peer-reviewed paper in press at Journal of Climate. See

Mojo: CANCUN, Mexico (AFP) – Carbon emissions from fossil fuels may bear a greater risk for the marine environment than thought,
JK: Well DUH, this is the make or break conference for the global warming fraud. This is where the fraud of the century will probably be killed for good. OF COURSE, those standing to make millions from the fraud are going all out to dupe people one last time.

I hope you noted the use of the weasel work “may”. Look at most of the junk coming our of the alarmists - it usually is accompanied by words like “may”, “could” and “might”. Pure PR bull shat.

BTW, the claim (as usual a cover story in the, now discredited Nature) that the Antarctic is warming just got debunked by a peer-reviewed paper in press at Journal of Climate. See http://climateaudit.org/2010/12/02/odonnell-et-al-2010-refutes-steig-et-al-2009/. Seems the usual fraudsters at and around the CRU (of emails fame) got caught fudging the numbers again by misusing statistics again. (Like Mann to fabricate his hockeystick.)

Mojo: are very gradually turning the water more acidic,
JK: These fools don’t even know that the ocean is NOT acidic - it is basic, alkaline. It WILL remain alkaline because of buffing. Another pure scare story after “global warming” was debunked, then “climate change” was recognized as a natural event, so they had to come up with another scare to separate fools from their money. The hucksters seem to be test marketing “species extinction” as the successor.

Thanks
JK.

Good to know the ocean is being buffed.

.JK: These fools don’t even know that the ocean is NOT acidic - it is basic, alkaline.

Jim, those kind of statements are the reason most folks don't take you seriously and dismiss you as a reactionary caricature. Or didn't you know?

I work with water scientists and hydraulic engineers everyday, and have a fair bit of hands-on experience myself. You don't have even the most basic understanding of what you're talking about here. No, posting endless screeds full of angry, far-off-in-the-weeds diatribes doesn't make you more credible--in fact, it has the opposite effect.

Rave on.

Hey, that odorless, colorless, harmless gas was a pretty good buy in November of 2007.

Mojo: It is people like you that are the reason that fewer and fewer in the masses are buying this crap. There is not one single shred of evidence or measurement that has EVER been offered to date that validates any theoretical radiation calculation made in climate models that all of this bunk is based upon. The modeling is a disaster and complete failure, there has been no statistically significant warming in ten years globally, and in fact, the Northwest region tri state area, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho have cooled 1/2 degF since 1985 by the thermometer temperature records, completely at odds with Phil Motes assessments and predictions he made in 1992. My only hope is that criminal prosecution will be brought against the incompetent liars and sheisters of public money like Hansen, Schmidt, Mann and Ladbury for spreading all of the preposterous lies about CO2 and warming, while pillaging the taxpayer with the incessant propaganda so that they can set us up for a bigger duping. I wish Al Gore, the Chicago Climate Exchange and all of this frivolity a swift bankruptcy and financial failure and I hope it will be a hard learned lesson for other investers, who I also hope will go after all the liars. The 350 ppmv figure of CO2 touted by the 350 group is an outrigt lie and frivolity and scientifically baseless. The real crime here is Ph.D's using their "union card" to promote the rot and enrich themselves. It has indeed become a proxy for acceptable lying in many of their circles.

Chuck Wiese
Meteorologist

ecohuman: I work with water scientists and hydraulic engineers everyday, and have a fair bit of hands-on experience myself. You don't have even the most basic understanding of what you're talking about here.
JK: If you think the ocean is acidic, you are totally uniformed. Hopefully some of your co-workers can set you straight about basic chemestry and buffers.

Thanks
JK

Nobody thinks the "ocean is acid", Karlock, and that's not the issue--the issue is acidification, the fundamental change in ocean chemistry that affects life. It's been observed worldwide, by just about every person involved in marine science. No serious scientist is "debating" it.

But those nutjob scientists at the EPA seem to have drunk the Kool-aid:
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/19/alerting-states-to-ocean-acidity/

And those wacky alarmists at NOAA seem confused, too:
http://www.research.noaa.gov/spotlite/spot_gcc.html

What's really disturbing is those 150 or so marine scientist signatories to the Monaco Declaration:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7860350.stm

They're really on the fringe. I mean--who could take this seriously? It's just a bunch of extremists acting in some weird, politically and financially motivated, globally coordinated cabal to brainwash humanity.

Just like climate change. Those crazy alarmists.

ecohuman: Get real. Nobody is listening to this crap any longer on the outside of those employed in government or whose livilyhood depends upon it. There is no ocean acidification occuring and there are no measurements of atmospheric infrared radiation that back up projections by climate models. You guys deserve to be called liars at this point for refusing to accept the reality of what stands before you. The modeling has failed. That is all you ever had to rely on to make thee preposterous claims.

Chuck Wiese
Meteorologist

2010 so far "tied for hottest year"
By Gerard Wynn and Alister Doyle
LONDON/OSLO | Thu Nov 25, 2010 1:19pm EST

LONDON/OSLO (Reuters) - This year is so far tied for the hottest year in a temperature record dating back to 1850 in a new sign of a warming trend, the three major institutes which calculate global warming estimates told Reuters.

Con't at http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AN3YZ20101125

1.11.2008 12:00 PM By The Daily Green Staff
Who's Who on Inhofe's List of 400 Global Warming Deniers
Inhofe's "scientists" include economists, the retired, TV weathermen, mathematicians, amateurs and industry spokespeople

Sen. James M. Inhofe's list of 400+ supposedly prominent climate scientists who doubt global warming is full of names that should raise big question marks, including economists and other social scientists, mathematicians, TV weathermen, retired scientists and amateurs, as well as scientists who have received support for their work from fossil fuel industries. Read here about why that could be an issue of concern.

Here are the names below, with some explanation.
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-scientists-46011008

Inhofe's 400 Global Warming Deniers Debunked By Dan Shapley
1.11.2008 12:00 PM
List of "Scientists" Includes Economists, Amateurs, TV Weathermen and Industry Hacks

Sen. James M. Inhofe once famously called global warming the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." It's a deliciously concise phrase – so well said, in fact, that it demands repeating, because it is so sure of itself, and so wrong.

In the delirious tradition of American conspiracy theories (like that old farce, the Apollo 11 moon landing) Inhofe backs up categorical declarations with voluminous documentation.

Inhofe's latest claim is that "Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called 'consensus' on man-made global warming." It's a claim backed up by honest-to-goodness research, of the cut-and-paste kind.

Like any conspiracy theory, the sheer magnitude of the effort lends it a first-blush air of credibility. And, like any conspiracy theory, it just doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

MORE at http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-47011101

Mojo: One year doesn't prove squat, and this year is NOT hotter than 1998, according to global satellite records, we are nearly tied with 1998, and December will tell the story. Go to drroyspencer.com to see this.Between 1998 and now, there has been no statistically significant warming, and even if we beat 1998 by a tenth of a degree or so, as Dr. Spencer says, that is not statistically significant either. Pointing to a warm year doesn't prove what caused it, either. Where are the infrared radiation measurements that back up the theoretical calculations? There aren't any!

The real amateurs in this are you and those academics who have actually lied about cliamte records or seriously miscalculated them like Climate Impacts Group and James Hansen at NASA as well as Phil Jones from Hadley CRU. We back up our claims with real data and science, you guys are lying through your teeth at this point and are the real deniers of facts that you can measure. The founding work in atmospheric radiation NEVER eluded to the possibility ir probability that CO2 could ever control the earth's climate. These ideas were supplanted in failed modeling that substituted for real science by your group. And, it would be nice to know who you are. You make a frivolous claim that people like me who is a trained meteorologist knows nothing about climate. So far, you speak with complete ignorance about the subject and continue to lie about what you purport to be facts.

Chuck Wiese
Meteorologist

Ah yes, Roy Spencer.

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

I'm sure that a fellow who believes in intelligent design (and argues for its mandatory teaching in school) is a reliable fellow. I won't mention the heavy funding of his work by ExxonMobil (funder of the George Marshall Institute), his enthusiastic involvement the venerable scientific institution the Heartland Institute (favorite belief: secondhand tobacco smoke can't kill you), and his long-ago (publicly) discredited satellite data.

But Chuck, I notice that you quote Spencer heavily. That says a lot about what you're willing to accept as fact.

ecohuman: I won't mention the heavy funding of his work by ExxonMobil
JK: OK, then I won’t mention oil company support of the CRU which is the scientific foundation of the IPCC. And I won’t mention Enron’s early support of CO2 reduction (they sold low carbon fuel). And we won’t mention the several BILLION dollars given to researchers to find man made global warming. (All they found was Mann made.)

The fact that you attack the messenger tells us that you have no logical case and you resort to hurling insults.

ecohuman: his enthusiastic involvement the venerable scientific institution the Heartland Institute
JK: Don’t forget the Billionaires that support the false science of AGW, for instance George Soros. Can’t you do anything except attack those who tell you things you don’t like to hear?

ecohuman: (favorite belief: secondhand tobacco smoke can't kill you),
JK: Typical progressive - criticize someone for coming to an answer they don’t like instead of criticizing the study.

ecohuman: and his long-ago (publicly) discredited satellite data.
JK: Quit lying just because you don’t like the data coming from what is generally believed to be the most accurate data source we have. I presume you know there are two groups doing satellite temperature and the BOTH AGREE. So, if you are criticizing one, you are criticizing ALL satellite data - you are criticizing what is generally regarded as the best data we have. But that makes sense for a warmer dupe, since accurate data and honest science kills the warmer’s case.

ecohuman: But Chuck, I notice that you quote Spencer heavily. That says a lot about what you're willing to accept as fact.
JK: That you attack Spencer personally tells us all that we need to know about you and your inability to research, reason and form rational conclusions. Instead, you just engage in personal attacks.

Thanks
JK

Right on, ecohuman. Their mix of white noise and initiating ad hominem attacks is now trite as well as maliciously false. Talk about a bunch of hot air -- sheesh. Ho hum.

"...lecture was problematic"
By Keith Peterman on November 13, 2010

York College hosted Dr. Richard Lindzen as a climate-change skeptic speaker on Thursday evening. If you wanted to learn more about the underlying scientific basis of climate change, you would have left the lecture deeply disappointed. Dr. Lindzen was instead a condescending, patronizing speaker whose sole goal was to paint all scientists as lackeys in the service of politics. As one of my colleagues noted, "He is supposed to be a leading climate scientist, but he didn't even present any of his own research". He simply attacked the credibility of scientists and scientific bodies - the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) - while painting himself as one of the few "intelligent person[s]" who could deconstruct the "alarmists" scientific findings.

Dr. Lindzen was a good scientist who made valuable contributions to climate science with his early models. However, he contributes little to the referred scientific literature in recent years. He now writes editorials and gives presentations aimed at politicizing the science. It is unfortunate that York College contributed to this vilification-of-scientists agenda by providing a higher education platform-of-legitimacy.

Con't at http://www.yorkblog.com/hot/2010/11/lindzen-lecture-was-problematic.html

Global warming 'skeptic' at York College draws some concern
http://www.yorkblog.com/cram/2010/11/global-warming-skeptic-at-york-college-draws-some-concern.html

"Richard Lindzen- Skepticism and Unprofessional-ism"
http://www.yorkblog.com/hot/2010/11/richard-lindzen--skepticism-and-unprofessional-ism.html

More at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/18/dr-richard-lindzens-heartland-2010-keynote-address/

For anyone who is still confused by Karlock & Weise's comments above:

Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy -- Union of Concerned Scientists

The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate.

Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing

* Factcheck.org says claims against scientists misrepresent the content of the emails.
* Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann (pdf) of wrongdoing.
* An independent investigation commissioned by the University of East Anglia found no evidence of fraud or deceit.
* A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.

****

UCS's analysis of the emails and the debate surrounding them aims to correct popular misconceptions about what the emails say, put them in scientific context and explain the importance of scientific integrity.

More at http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html

Quit lying just because you don’t like the data coming from what is generally believed to be the most accurate data source we have.

I invite readers to peruse the Wikipedia entry that not only documents the discreditation, but provides sources:

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

And a story explaining more about their error (which they publicly admitted but quickly justified):
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/science/earth/12climate.long.html

That you attack Spencer personally tells us all that we need to know about you and your inability to research, reason and form rational conclusions. Instead, you just engage in personal attacks.

Typical progressive - criticize someone for coming to an answer they don’t like instead of criticizing the study.

To paraphrase Fox News, Karlock, the Heartland Institute's entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. calling opinions facts doesn't change their status.

Don’t forget the Billionaires that support the false science of AGW, for instance George Soros. Can’t you do anything except attack those who tell you things you don’t like to hear?

Karlock, you've always reminded me of a boy I knew in sixth grade, who told teachers that since other kids were being disobedient, they had no right to criticize his behavior. It didn't work for him, either. In other words--excusing one behavior by pointing out the other's is a mark of childishness. Adults own their own behavior. That includes George Soros--and organizations being funded by ExxonMobil.

And folks, you'll notice how, quietly and quickly, Wiese and Karlock have shifted the conversation from ocean acidification to "global warming". Karlock, what about ocean acidification? Tell us more about how it's a myth and a hoax.

Mojo: The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light.
JK: Why do you say that when the emails contain the following:
* CRU head, Jones says the world quit warming.
* CRU head, Jones threatens to delete files rather than fulfill a FOIA (a crime)
* CRU head, Jones asks others to delete emails subject to a FOIA
* CRU head, Jones asks others to change the date on an official document. (fraud)
* CRU head, Jones admits trying to keep a paper out of the IPCC report (fraud)
* CRU head, Jones admits tampering with the peer review process. (fraud)
* CRU head, Jones talks about hiding data that does not support his claim in a paper. (scientific misconduct)

Mojo: The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised.
JK: Wrong again. From the eamils:

Phil Jones - head of the Climatic Research Unit Draft Contributing Author to the Summary for Policy Makers, and Coordinating Lead Author of Ch3 of the 4th UN IPCC report on climate change, AR4)
Jul 5 2005: The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant. (1120593115.txt) Note: in 2010, it is now 12 years of cooling.

2/2/2005: The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. (1107454306.txt)

September 12, 2007: Ammann/Wahl - try and change the Received date! Don't give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with. (1189722851.txt)

Jul 8 16:30:16 2004: I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is! (1089318616.txt)

JK: Tell us, Mojo, how can you say the research was not compromised when they say warming quit 12 years ago, threaten to delete data to keep people from checking their claims, advocate fraudulent dating of documents and try to keep opposing papers from the IPCC report ?

Here is more:
Michael E. Mann Creator of the famous “hockey stick” shaped temperature curve prominently featured in the UN’s third climate report (tar) used by Al Gore.

04 Jun 2003: I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back (1054736277.txt)

JK: Tell us, Mojo, how can you say that climate data was not compromised when they say it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP"?

If you can’t see that these guys were committing scientific fraud, you need to learn basic logic and some science. More are emails at: http://www.sustainableoregon.com/selectedemails.html PS: Don’t miss the ones where they describe trying to get oil company funding from Exxon-Mobile and Shell International and from a multinational billion dollar corporation, Siemens Corp

Mojo: Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate.
JK: See above - their fraud underlies the whole field of climate “research.” It is a giant fraud.

Mojo: * Factcheck.org says claims against scientists misrepresent the content of the emails.
JK: They are wrong. No suprise - factcheck appears to be a biased operation firmly in the hands of ultra liberals.

Mojo: * Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann (pdf) of wrongdoing.
JK: Well duh, they were investigating one of their own and had they found problems, they would have lost millions in grants.

Mojo: * An independent investigation commissioned by the University of East Anglia found no evidence of fraud or deceit.
JK: Well duh, they investigated themselves. Did you expect anything else?

Mojo: * A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.
JK: That was a very limited investigation that ignored most of the evidence because of time constraints. Mojo, why did you ignore this key statement in the conclusions section: Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took . Words have meaning - “limited” means it was not through. The mention of “evidence” means their conclusion only applies to the limited evidence they looked at. See: publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/38708.htm

Mojo: UCS's analysis of the emails and the debate surrounding them aims to correct popular misconceptions about what the emails say, put them in scientific context and explain the importance of scientific integrity.
JK: That is also simply not true. See the email at sustainable Oregon & try to tell us with a straight face that the CRU emails are not the smoking gun against the AGW fraud.

BTW, nothing in those emails is really a surprise - they only verify what skeptics have figured out years ago: the whole AGW scare is a fabrication - there is not real evidence.

Thanks
JK

You make a frivolous claim that people like me who is a trained meteorologist knows nothing about climate. So far, you speak with complete ignorance about the subject and continue to lie about what you purport to be facts.

Chuck, the American Meterological Society--you know, that professional organization that thousands of meteorolgists belong to--believes manmade climate change is real, and the scientists attempting to understand it are credible:

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html

In fact, the AMS--again, that organization that someone like you as a "trained meteorologist" should belong to, since over 99% of all meteorologists do--disagrees with just about every point you're making.

Are they wrong?

ecohuman: To paraphrase Fox News, Karlock, the Heartland Institute's entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. calling opinions facts doesn't change their status.
JK: Name one opinion that I present as fact. And why do you refuse to show us the facts that indicate that man’s activities are dangerous to climate.

Of course, you won’t because there are no facts behind the A in AGW and it is starting to look like there might be no facts, only “adjusted” data, behind the W in AGW too! See: http://www.sustainableoregon.com/data_adjustments.html

ecohuman: Adults own their own behavior. That includes George Soros--and organizations being funded by ExxonMobil.
JK: The only reason I bring it up is because YOUR side makes a big deal out of who funds skeptics. IF you disqualify scientists who oppose AGW because of oil company connections, they you MUST also disqualify everything coming out of the CRU because they DID take oil company money. And you MUST disqualify the whole IPCC because they rely heavily in the CRU. So, by the false standard of your side, you have almost no AGW supporters becasue they are mostly associated with the IPCC and hence the CRU which takes oil money.

ecohuman: And folks, you'll notice how, quietly and quickly, Wiese and Karlock have shifted the conversation from ocean acidification to "global warming". Karlock, what about ocean acidification? Tell us more about how it's a myth and a hoax.
JK: Who is shifting away from anything? I am just answering false claims as they come up. As to the Oceans, if there is any evidence that they are acid, please share it and win the Nobel science prize.

As to the false claims of “acidification”, the oceans are NOT anywhere near being acid and the PH (you do know what PH is don’t you?) is stabilized by buffers in the ocean. Acidification is merely the fall back panic created to replace global warming/climate change/ climate disruption in order to keep the money flowing. Too bad so many people,. Mostly scientifically illiterate, fall for this crap so easily.

Thanks
JK

ecohuman: Chuck, the American Meterological Society--you know, that professional organization that thousands of meteorolgists belong to--believes manmade climate change is real, and the scientists attempting to understand it are credible:
JK: Simple - the AMS leaders lied.

ecohuman: In fact, the AMS--again, that organization that someone like you as a "trained meteorologist" should belong to, since over 99% of all meteorologists do--disagrees with just about every point you're making.
Are they wrong?
JK: YES!

Actually I’m glad you brought this up as it is a perfect example of why so many “professional” organizations support the climate fraud. The official position of these organizations is NOT based on a servey of the actual members, rather is is set by a small band of insiders, usually with motives disconnected from the truth.

The difference with the AMS is that they actually did a survey of their members and were appaled to find that 75% didn’t buy the climate lie that you swallowed. It is all explained here:
http://www.sustainableoregon.com/amssurvey.html

Please quit spreading these lies - almost everything you believe about AGW is based or reading only leftie greenie propaganda - try some other sources like:

WattsUpWithThat.com
ClimateAudit.org
climatedepot.com
joannenova.com.au

Thanks
JK

echohuman: Yes, the American Meteorological Society is wrong, and mainly for taking a position on climate without caring an iota about what its members believe. An AMS survey of its members showed that most on the operational level DO NOT support the AMS statement made about climate. That was and is using the AMS by the operating Board who belong to academia and took it upon themselves to make the statement, thus lending a false credibility to the claims just like universities are doing that make a living off of advocacy positioning on the matter, which is supporting a claim without proof, thereby making it scientifically frivolous. See wattsupwiththat.com to see a searing letter of damnation by ex member of the American Physical Society, Harold Lewis, who said this very same thing about the APS, that its Board ignored the opinions and demands of its members to independently investigate whether the claims the Board supported about climate, that were nearly identical with the American Meteorological Societies claims were, in fact, true, which physicists like Lewis and several hundered others doubted. There remains zero proof offered to date that any of the earth's past warming that ended over ten years ago has ANYTHING to to with carbon dioxide and the founding work in atmospheric radiation suggests it does not, but again, was never disproven, only supplanted with failed climate modeling.

Chuck Wiese
Meteorologist

Mojo: What convoluted nonsense. Sure, Roy Spencer is automatically discredited in science from your view because he is a christian? What the hell does that have to do with anything? What an idiotic statement! Does he mix science and religion? I've never seen that. Just reliable satellite earth temperatures that he has and managed for many years, still does and you have to find fault with his personal beliefs even though they have nothing to do with his work. Talk about changing the subject. You can't attack his measurements so you attack him. How typical of a fraudster like yourself who is continuing to lie about the earth's temperature record to hang onto whatever connects you to this fraud. Care to tell us your real name and who you work for? Most of you clowns don't because you can't. You run around in secrecy spreading lies about climatological data to continue to attempt to prop up a stool whose legs have been sawed off in all three places. Sorry pal, the band aids aren't going to work much longer. I hope the new Congress follows through on investigating Michael Mann,Hansen and Schmidt. If the investigations are done correctly and independently, the emperor's robe will finally come off. I am delighted that the first order of business was to shut down Pelosi's fraudulent climate committee. Now we just need to shut off the continued funding of this junk science and pull the plug on the EPA to save the innocent public from the continued thievery of those stake holders who were relying on making a fat living off of this sham at the masses expense. I wish the Chicago Climate Exchange a swift bankrupty and decertification from the stock market.

Chuck Wiese
Meteorologist

Z-z-z-z-zzzzzz....

Chuck, have pity on echohuman, Mojo, David, and their fellow travelers.

For years they have been dreaming of dictating every detail of other people's lives and crushing the non-believers. They dreamed of establishing a world wide green paradise where man will be forced to be just another animal fighting for survival and for every scrap of food, where the average man lives 30 years and dies of diseases conquered long ago.

They view industrialized society as the enemy and think it has to be destroyed. When Al Gore came along with his phony science they jumped at the chance to finally realize their dreams. They dreamed of a second holocast that would de-populate the earth to preserve it for nature. In their warped view, the fact that billions would die as industrialized society collapsed was just collateral damage, necessary to save the earth from their imagined harms. (They dream of a return to the old Testiment Garden of Eden.) Right here in Oregon, they even went so far as to dream of putting the skeptics in concentration camps.

Now they are watching their plans crumble like a house of cards before their eyes as one lie after another is exposed. If they had ever bothered to have an open mind, the signs were there for years, ( Rob Kremer saw it twelve years ago when he wrote in the April, 1998 issue of Brainstorm and only fools still believed it after the NAS' North & Wegman reports) but they got blinded by their delusions and never bothered to actually read these reports. They also never bothered to study science. (They would do anything to save the Earth except study real science instead of environmentalism - because in real science you have to learn math and logic.)

They are finding it very hard to face the reality that the IPCC lied, the CRU lied, Mann lied, Jones lied and Al Gore lied. They covered up inconvenient data, conjured up data, persecuted opponents and took over the peer-review process. Their guru, Al Gore is making Millions deluding them, while his co-conspirators are dreaming of making Billions on trading carbon and other green scams. They were all part of a grand conspiracy to pull off the greatest scientific fraud of all time. All for their own power and money.

Eventually they will have to face reality and some may even admit they got suckered by the same big corporations that they love to hate so much: Shell, Exxon, and BP which all financed their scientist gods at the CRU.

They are all in-capable of basic science, logic or even asking simple questions like “where is your evidence that man is the cause”. They happily let others think for them like good little mid-century Germans. The basic question is: did they learn from this experience, or will blindly follow the next “feel good” crackpot idea that comes a long?

Unfortunately, these same sorts of fools also run our city & state.

Thanks
JK

Jim: I agree with your statements completely, but I don't have any pity for these guys. They are lying and spreading incorrect information about climate to continue the attempts to self enrich their constituents through the creation of new taxation and regulation which we get nothing for except to reward and feed these sloths that deserve to be fired for their blatant dishonesty.

Chuck Wiese
Meteorologist

The difference with the AMS is that they actually did a survey of their members and were appaled to find that 75% didn’t buy the climate lie that you swallowed.

Wrong again, Karlock. This "survey of their members" was...wait for it...a survey of 121 self-selected members of the listserv for television meteorologists.

The other 13,000+ members of the AMS did not participate. This was not "75% of AMS members disagreeing". But you knew that, didn't you? Wiese does, too, but he's careful to avoid the facts that complicate the fantasy. Again, Karlock--demonstrate that what I just said is a lie.

They view industrialized society as the enemy and think it has to be destroyed.

That's right, Karlock--I'm posting in the Web because I hate the Web and want to destroy it. I'm interested in preserving the planet by destroying humanity. I try and change government policy and public action because I hate government and, er, the public. You found me out.

Sure, Roy Spencer is automatically discredited in science from your view because he is a christian? What the hell does that have to do with anything?

Spencer never said he was a Christian--he said he believes in intelligent design and creationism. A fundamental tenet of creationism is that God won't allow humans to destroy the planet, and that any human activity that harms it just hastens the Apocalypse. Given that he essentially views prehistory as irrelevant to modern man and to his future, I'd say his religious worldview is completely relevant.

Does he [Roy Spencer] mix science and religion? I've never seen that

Then you haven't been paying attention. Spencer's published repeatedly on his views on intelligent design and God's role in the climate. And as a bonus topic, he's a well-known self-identified right-winger:

The idea that our government exists to help enable a better life for its citizens might have been true 100 years ago, but today it is hopelessly naïve. "

And that's just a dip in the frosting that he heavily applies to his supposedly neutral, science-based approach to discussing the problem. Did I mention he thinks people who believe human-induced climate change are a threat to the free market economy? Look it up, readers.

Acidification is merely the fall back panic created to replace global warming/climate change/ climate disruption in order to keep the money flowing. Too bad so many people,. Mostly scientifically illiterate, fall for this crap so easily.

You mean like those "scientifically illiterate" people at NOAA? I *knew* they were faking that data and those photographs! And the Asutralian government? Amateurs! UNESCO has got to be clueless to be calling it a problem. The International Atomic Energy Agency is even drinking the kool-aid. Who will fall for it next?

ecohuman : Wrong again, Karlock. This "survey of their members" was...wait for it...a survey of 121 self-selected members of the listserv for television meteorologists.
JK: Here is what the AMS publication “BAMS” said:
The survey was distributed by e-mail to broadcast meteorologists on the AMS listserve (numbering approximately 800) the week of 8 May 2008. There were 121 responses by 7 June, which was more than the expected goal of 100. BAMS, Oct 2009 pg 1457

Notice that the survey was distributed to a list of 800 meteorologists. That is not self selection - that is selection of all (or a sub set of) a certain membership. The fact that 121 (15%) responded is a pretty good response rate . This situation is the same as in a classic mail survey and no one claims self selection in the ordinary meaning of the term.

But we are arguing about authority - lets get to the root of the argument: do you know of any real evidence that man is causing dangerous warming?

ecohuman : That's right, Karlock--I'm posting in the Web because I hate the Web and want to destroy it. I'm interested in preserving the planet by destroying humanity. I try and change government policy and public action because I hate government and, er, the public. You found me out.
JK: BTW, do you have a real name? And do you know of any real evidence that man is causing dangerous warming?

ecohuman : The idea that our government exists to help enable a better life for its citizens might have been true 100 years ago, but today it is hopelessly naïve. "
JK: Where did that quote come from. Or is it your statement of wanting a totalitarian government?

ecohuman : Did I mention he thinks people who believe human-induced climate change are a threat to the free market economy? Look it up, readers.
JK: No need to look it up - he is plainly right. And a threat to our way of life, too. You guys are trying to dictate our energy choices. Worse yet you are trying to force us to spend billions of dollars on frauds like solar voltaic and to a lesser extent wind. And some of you are even advocating rationing of carbon usage, putting skeptics on trial and one person, that ran for the Oregon legislature, advocated “reeducation” camps for non-believers.

ecohuman : (quoting JK) Acidification is merely the fall back panic created to replace global warming/climate change/ climate disruption in order to keep the money flowing. Too bad so many people,. Mostly scientifically illiterate, fall for this crap so easily.
ecohuman : You mean like those "scientifically illiterate" people at NOAA?
JK: No, they are quite literate and are some of the ones manipulating data to scare people into giving then research money. In case you forgot several big names in the AGW scare movement have confessed to exaggerating danger to scare people. And, of course, the, perhaps, world’s leading climate “scientist” & head of the CRU, admitted there has been no statistically significant global warming for 15 years.

ecohuman : I *knew* they were faking that data and those photographs!
JK: What photographs? Or do you men the standard fare of the fakers like dry lake beds that turn out to frequently go dry going back to the early 1900s, receding glaciers that have slowed receding since the 1930s, melting arctic ice caused by ocean currents NOT warming according to NASA, polar bears whose population is exploding, or photo shopped floods?

ecohuman : And the Asutralian government?
JK: Which scientists might that be? All I recall is a bunch of politicians hoping for political gain with their green party.

I hope you are following the weather reports from Europe - they are starting to have another record breaking cold winter. (And don’t tell us that you are silly enough to believe that both warm and cold winters (or summers) are caused by global warming.)

PS: I’m still waiting for actual evidence of man causing dangerous warming. Do you know of any?

Thanks
JK
SustainableOregon.com

I've changed my mind, I'm giving up. I'm going to throw in with Karlock and Wiese: There is a global, international, massively coordinated effort by the scientific community to defraud the public in order to "keep themselves funded". This fraud includes faked documents, faked photographs, massive amounts of doctored scientific data, and collusion with world governments. This goes all the way up to presidents and prime ministers.

What's more, those thousands of scientists across several disciplines and countries are trying to create panic and chaos to disrupt the free market economy and control the global economy through fear and doubt.

I've placed an order for my "I [heart] Roy Spencer" t-shirt. I highly recommend to all readers that you realize that Karlock and Wiese are right, and this global cabal is wrong, and dangerously so. I'm glad I saw it in time. Whew.

echohuman: Again you post but fail to identify yourself and your connection to the climate fraud.

Here is som reading for you:http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-us-manipulated-climate-accord/print

Yeah. US government manipulation of climate records and threats and bribes to cut deals. Sounds like legitimate science, doesn't it? Or is it just a cabal of thiefs who want massive new taxes and regulations to feed the never ending hole in a trough we call public spending?

Chuck Wiese
Meteorologist

Thanks, Chuck. I forgot to add--I also now believe that the US government has manipulated climate records and used bribes to manipulate scientific outcomes about climate change. I also forgot to add that this global conspiracy is more commonly known as an international "cabal of thieves" who want "massive new taxes".

Did I leave anything else out?

Here is som reading for you:http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-us-manipulated-climate-accord/print

Chuck, I'm confused. This does not support our worldview--it says the US tried to manipulate other countries to accept *less* stringent pollution constraints. You and I know that can't be true, right? Because we know the US government is in on the massive attempt to defraud Americans about the environment through falsification of proof about "global warming".

Help me, Chuck. I'm knew to this correct view of worldwide global cabal-conspiracy of thieves-governments-scientists. I want to be sure I know who to hate and call names.

Hey echohuman: We are still waiting for you to show us evidence that man is causing dangerous warming.

Please no more ad hominem, no more arguing from authority, and no more arguing from ignorance (we can't figure it out so it must be man).

You can start by explaining the lack of statistically significant warming for the last 15 years fits in.

thanks
JK

ecohuman: Do you not even undestand this?? Of course the US wanted less constraints on third world countries, they supposedly "pollute less" and the idea was to put the burden of taxes and heavy handed regulations on us! This was supposed to reduce "global pollution" but at the same time transfer wealth out of the US to aid samller countries in their development.

The point is to get a world agreement in place that ties the hands of the US and other wealthier nations who emit more carbon under the auspices that will make a difference in global CO2 concentration even though it won't.

This isn't a rocket science article, ecohuman, you should be able to understand it. The article states well the deception that is being used to sign everyone on. The beneficiaries are the academics who want higher taxes and a permanent revenue stream for themselves, and government bureaucracies that grow by regulating under the plan. The losers are anyone else that is not part of the scam. That would be people like me and most of the massess. So, again, who are you, and who do you work for?

Chuck Wiese
Meteorologist

So, again, who are you, and who do you work for?

I'm on board, Karlock and Chuck! I can see now that it's a globally coordinated cabal conspiracy of governments and scientists, seeking to keep their funding and wreck the free market. I see it clearly now. I was wrong all along.

Oh, and, Chuck--I don't work for the government, or for any private or public agency, or anybody involved with "global warming". I'm writing from my own heart and sense of humor. My goal? Keep both the planet and my fellow humans alive. what's *your* intention, other than long and invective-laden tirades against some supposed massive global conspiracy (which I now believe in!)?

ecohuman: Keep both the planet and my fellow humans alive. what's *your* intention,
JK: To keep the eco nuts from harming people with un-needed rules like CO2 restrictions. Too bad you don’t care about harming people with silly rules.

We are still waiting for you to show us evidence that man is causing dangerous warming. Please no more ad hominem, no more arguing from authority, and no more arguing from ignorance (we can't figure it out so it must be man). You can start by explaining the lack of statistically significant warming for the last 15 years.

thanks
JK

To keep the eco nuts from harming people with un-needed rules like CO2 restrictions.

Harmed in what way?

Okay. Whew. I think I've got my facts together about this massive fraud. I carefully gathered the thoughts of Karlock from this comment thread, and will post them here so I don't forget:

-----
Global warming is a fraud, and based on "false science".
Nobody has ever shown man to be the cause of climate change.
The IPCC has defrauded the world about climate change.
The CRU is a fraud.

The American Meteorological Society is wrong about climate change.
The American Academy for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is wrong about climate change.
The American Geophysical Union is wrong about climate change.
NASA is wrong about climate change (mostly).
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is wrong about climate change.
The National Academy of Science is wrong about climate change.
The Army Corps of Engineers is wrong about climate change.
Wikipedia is wrong about satellite temperature readings.

The Climate Impacts Group lied about climate change.
James Hansen lied about climate change.
Al Gore lied about climate change.
The CRU lied about climate change.
Scientists claiming ocean acidifcation is a disaster are lying.
The US government is lying about climate change.
The Australian government is lying about climate change.
George Soros lied (and is funding false science).
factcheck.org lies about climate change.

"Global warming" is a hoax, perpetuated for financial reasons and an attempt to control and harm other humans through policy and a global government.
The ocean is "basic, alkaline", and acidification is a hoax and a lie.

For years, people like ecohuman and Mojo "have been dreaming of dictating every detail of other people's lives and crushing the non-believers."

Also, people like ecohuman and Mojo want to destroy industrialized society.

Shell, Exxon, and BP "suckered everybody" by funding the CRU, but when funding the George C. Marshall institute, they did good.

Ocean acidification is a fraud, and is being used as a replacement for the fraud of "global warming".

Okay. That completes my work on this comment thread. I now leave it to wiser minds to complete the discussion.

ecohuman: Okay. That completes my work on this comment thread. I now leave it to wiser minds to complete the discussion.
JK: A list of alleged experts is NOT EVIDENCE of warming! The fact is that you don’t have any evidence, and just parrot what others say. You are relying on others to think for you! (I’ll bet you really miss the fact that you were unable to join all of your like thinkers in mid century Germany.)

Again I ask you to show us evidence that man is causing dangerous warming. Please no more ad hominem, no more arguing from authority (lists of alleged experts) , and no more arguing from ignorance (we can't figure it out so it must be man).

Thanks
JK

Ecohuman: As usual, you really don't understand the argument. Nobody, including me, is saying there has not been climate change. The issue is and always has been what caused it. People like you continue to twist words and put words into the mouths of others that we never said because you can't get your facts straight. All of the above you cite a wrong about climate change from the stanpoint that they all continue to assert that the climate is still warming, which it is not and that HUMANS are responsible for the past and falsely claimed present warming.

I continue to assert that there is NOT ONE SINGLE SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT HAS EVER BEEN OFFERED THAT DEMONSTRATES CO2 EMISSIONS FROM HUMANS HAS OR IS CAUSING THE CLIMATE TO CHANGE. There have never been any measurements of atmospheric radiation satisfactorily gathered from the ground or satellites that mimick theoretical calculatuonms made in climate models. In fact, the infrared emission from the earth as detected by satellite over the tropical oceans shows no decrease as it is modeled as CO2 increases. Unril ANY of these people you cite demonstrate and back up the calculated response from CO2 ( which contradicts expected behavior in a hydrological cycle ) there is no scientific proof presented. Just a lot of conjecture which is at odds with all of the original teachings.

If you work in science or the government ( and because you won't identify yourself and your employer I am suspicious that you are conmnected to this junk science somehow ) you demonstrate little understanding or appreciation for how the scientific method works. Consensus and numbered opinions are meaningless. One person alone could prove the AGW hypothesis IF they have the measurements to back up their claims and identify what caused the PAST warming. Nobody to date has done this so your post of references is silly and really quite stupid.

Chuck Wiese
Meteorologist

ecohuman: (quoting JK)To keep the eco nuts from harming people with un-needed rules like CO2 restrictions.
ecohuman: Harmed in what way?
JK: Are you seriously asking how CO2 restrictions will hurt people???

It will make energy more expensive.

That will force a billion or so people to go back to burning dung to cook their food. And die early of breathing the smoke.

Already the ethanol fraud has caused riots by third world people who can no longer afford enough food because of ethanol production raising food prices.

People in England are having trouble affording to keep their homes heated in the current cold wave, just like last winter.

It’s a shame that you don’t care about people. But that is so typical of the eco movement.

Of course, even in the USA, higher energy prices cause jobs loss. Too bad you don’t care about that either.

Thanks
JK

Hey, ecohuman:

As you know, the case for man caused dangerous warming completely relies on climate models.

A new paper shows (again) that the models are complete crap:

The Abstract: We compare the output of various climate models to temperature and precipitation observations at 55 points around the globe.We also spatially aggregate model output and observations over the contiguous USA using data from 70 stations, and we perform comparison at several temporal scales, including a climatic (30-year) scale. Besides confirming the findings of a previous assessment study that model projections at point scale are poor, results show that the spatially integrated projections are also poor.
(Bold added) From: A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data, Hydrological Sciences Journal – Journal des Sciences Hydrologiques, 55(7) 2010
PDF: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/ftinterface~content=a928051726~fulltext=713240930~frm=section

Thanks
JK

Jim: Exactly right. This is the ONLY thing the AGW fraud machine has to make the claim that CO2 increases cause the climate to change. The radiation calculations are theoretical and assume water vapor INCREASES in the troposphere from the small additional absorption by increasing CO2 which then is supposed to create a positive feedback of a warming effect by increasing radiative absorption by the vapor which also acts to decrease cloud cover and earth albedo while also increasing absorption of surface IR energy radiating outward to space.

The effects should be that we see a net decrease in infrared radiation to space in areas that have a high specific heat such as the tropical oceans. Problem is, there are no measurements that demonstrate this. Emission increased with the temperatures when they warm and decreased when they cool. But the upper troposphere did dry out rather than moisten, an opposite effect projected by modeling, which would DECREASE total infrared absorption by the atmosphere, another effect not projected by models, but a real and theoretical consideration asserted by Ferenc Miskolczi's paper, entitled "The Saturated Greenhouse Effect" which describes well the theoretical implications of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere that mirror the founding work but are at odds with computer climate model codes that calculate out the opposite effects.

Ecohuman and Mojo appear to be political hacks whose jobs are to lie and sell the AGW soap. There remains no observation today that can validate computer climate code. It is wrong and has had been proven so in many areas that are critical to validation. The dryer upper troposphere being just one of them.

Hey David, ecohuman & Mojo:

Here are a thousand scientists that disagree with you and the less than 100 IPCC scientists that actually wrote the key alarmist section of AR4:

http://climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore

Thanks
JK