Originally posted by links234
That's not what they said at all!
Heidi Cullen, PhD.:
Really? let's see the facts...
First of all Heidi Cullen is the same witch from the Weather Channel that publicly has called for a witch hunt against all meteorologists who would
dare to deny or even question the AGW scam...
The Weather Channel’s climatologist, Dr. Heidi Cullen who hosts the program “The Climate Code”, is
advocating that broadcast meteorologists be denied certification (or re-certification) if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade global
warming. She posted this revelation in the blog she runs on the Weather Channel website and you can read it here:
Originally posted by links234
Here in the United States average temperatures have increased by roughly 1.5°F since record keeping began in 1895. More than 80 percent of this
temperature increase has occurred since 1980. The most recent decade was the nation’s warmest on record.
Yeah, and about half, if not more, of the warmer years occurred BEFORE 1939 or during the 1940s...
2012 Didn’t Crack The Top Ten For Record Maximums: ‘NOAA has inflated 2012 record maximum number by
adding new stations which didn’t exist during the hot years of 1930s” — ‘That is a completely illegitimate
approach. An apples to apples comparison uses only the same stations. When that is done, 2012 doesn’t even crack the ten hottest
Feds caught altering past temperature data: NOAA claims 1998 was previous ‘hottest on record’ on record —
But in 1999, the same year was only the 5th warmest before ‘adjustments’ — ‘In an article which NASA published
in 1999, Hansen showed that 1998 was only the fifth warmest year, after 1934, 1921, 1931 and 1953. In fact, 1998 was 0.6C cooler than
1934′ — ‘Over the past decade, NASA and NOAA have continuously altered the temperature record to cool the past and warm
the present. Their claims are straight out Orwell’s 1984, and have nothing to do with science’
Originally posted by links234
Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.:
Dr. Roger Pielke Jr is one of the scientists who does say mankind does have an effect, what he disagrees with is how much effect mankind activities
contribute to warming...
You see, despite what the AGW religious lunatics like to claim "there is no consensus"... There are scientists who state mankind activities have no
effect on the climate, there are scientists who state that mankind activities have an insignificant effect on the climate, there are scientists who
state that mankind activities have some effect on the climate, while others state that mankind activities have significant effects, and then there are
those who claim mankind is the main cause of Climate Change...
The fact is that those scientists who claim "mankind is the main cause of Climate Change" are the main proponents of the AGW scam, those scientists
include Mann, Hansen, Schmidt, Jones, Cullen, etc... It is these scientists, with the help of other AGW lunatics, who claim that "all scientists or a
majority of them agree with us" WHEN IT IS NOT TRUE...
Then there is the fact that Roger Pielke Jr is one of the many, many scientists who have found that the AGW proponents have been using dirty tactics,
trying to silence real scientists, posted and published false information, and have even erased raw temperature data so that NO ONE can verify the
claims of the main AGW proponents...
We Lost the Original Data
Steve McIntyre, of ClimateAudit, is a determined individual. While this may be no fun for those who fall under his focus and happen to have something
to hide, more sunlight on climate science cannot be a bad thing.
Obviously, the ability to do good research depends upon good data with known provenance. At the time WMO Resolution 40 was widely hailed in the
atmospheric sciences community as a major step forward in data sharing and availability in support of both operations and research.
Thus it is with some surprise to observe CRU going through bizarre contortions to avoid releasing its climate data to Steve McIntyre. They
first told him that he couldn't have it because he was not an academic. I found this to be a petty reason for keeping data out of the
hands of someone who clearly wants to examine it for scholarly purposes. So, wanting to test this theory I asked CRU for the data myself, being a
"real" academic. I received a letter back from CRU stating that I couldn't have the data because
"we do not hold the requested information."
I found that odd. How can they not hold the data when they are showing graphs of global temperatures on their webpage? However, it turns out
that CRU has in response to requests for its data put up a new webpage with the following remarkable admission (emphasis added):
We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had
sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received
into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record
should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites,
only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues.[b/ We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e.
quality controlled and homogenized) data.
Say what?! CRU has lost track of the original data that it uses to create its global temperature record!? Can this be serious? So not only is
it now impossible to replicate or reevaluate homogeneity adjustments made in the past -- which might be important to do as new information is learned
about the spatial representativeness of siting, land use effects, and so on -- but it is now also impossible to create a new temperature index from
scratch. CRU is basically saying, "trust us." So much for settling questions and resolving debates with empirical
information (i.e., science).
Among other dirty tactics...
[UPDATE 2 11/30: Here are several remarkable statements from climate scientists, one from the emails showing Kevin Trenberth calling for Chris
Landsea to be fired for holding the wrong views and and a comment today from Gavin Schmidt justifying gatekeeping in climate science on
political grounds. With comments like that, who needs emails?;-)]
Originally posted by links234
Scott Doney, PhD.:
Over the past two centuries, human activities have resulted in dramatic and well documented increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide and
acidification of the upper ocean. Today the surface ocean is almost 30% more acidic than it was in pre-industrial times, and over the next few
decades, the level of acidity of the surface ocean will continue to rise without deliberate action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and stabilize
atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
The acidification in the oceans hasn't occurred just in the upper ocean, there has been an increase in underwater volcanic activity, and releases of
gases due to natural processes, and yes some mankind activity as well. Not to mention that there are other real toxic chemicals, and other
anthropogenic, and even natural activities that are causes of more acidification of the oceans than CO2.
"They begin by noting that "several studies document acidification hot spots, patches of ocean water with significantly depressed pH
levels relative to historical baselines occurring at spatial scales of tens to hundreds of square kilometers...illustrate that freshwater inputs,
pollutants, and soil erosion can acidify coastal waters at substantially higher rates than atmospheric CO2 alone." And they add that
"additional local phenomena -- such as sulfur dioxide precipitation, hypoxia, eutrophication, and both emissions and runoff from acidic
fertilizers -- can intensify these localized hot spots,"...Some of the remedial measures that they list in this category are "stormwater surge
prevention (e.g., holding tanks), coastal and riparian buffers (areas of vegetation near land-water intersections), intact wetlands, and improved
onsite water treatment facilities," which they describe as "effective measures to address watershed runoff and associated pollutants."" [Kelly, R.P.,
Foley, M.M., Fisher, W.S., Feely, R.A., Halpern, B.S., Waldbusser, G.G. and Caldwell, M.R. 2011: Science]
I have said it many times in the past, oil companies should be really stressing that their "safety standards" shoul be practiced at all times. Yes,
there are frequent "safety meetings" in oil rigs on land and sea, but the truth is when push comes to shove unfortunately many company men (the bosses
in oil rigs who represent oil companies) will push oil rig crews beyond their limits, who will in turn bypass safety measures, many times without
wanting to, which in turn are the main causes for "accidents".
Originally posted by links234
Roy Spencer, PhD.:
...human contribution to atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations has resulted in an estimated 1% reduction in the Earth’s ability to cool to
outer space, and so some level of warming can be expected to occur from that change.
It sounded like measured, reasoned statements on the fact that global warming is occurring and at least some portion of it is a result of
If you knew Roy Spencer you wouldn't be trying to cherry-pick what he has to say.
In fact, here is his blog, go ahead and read it then come back and tells us that he agrees with the AGW claim...
In fact, in his blog he even puts an update in what he was talking about in that Senate report with regards to the AGW claim and REAL Climate
Let me excerpt part of what he has to say...
Senate EPW Hearing: “Climate Change: It’s Happened Before”
July 19th, 2013 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
OK, so yesterday’s hearing really was entitled, “Climate Change: It’s Happening Now”. I like my title better.
In this exceedingly rare photo of me actually cracking a smile, note my subliminal shout out to the “Coke” brothers (whom I’ve never met,
btw…I don’t even know what they do):
From the opening remarks made by the Democrats on the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, apparently you can see climate change yourself
just by looking in your backyard, or seeing how far from shore fishermen must go now to catch fish, or even (help me with the logic on this one) the
fact that smoking causes cancer.
I just submitted my updated written testimony (Spencer_EPW_Written_Testimony_7_18_2013_updated) to include the following chart (Click for full
This chart illustrates that, yes, we are currently warm, but not significantly warmer than the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or the Roman Warm
Period (RWP). So how is it we know today’s warmth is human-caused, when the last two warm periods couldn’t have been
caused by humans? Hmmm?
And if you want to hit me with a Hockey Stick, might I remind you that there are many more papers supporting the MWP and RWP than there are supporting
the Hockey Stick’s slick revision of history?
Or does “consensus” only count when it supports your side?
What’s that you say? The hockey stick is now the “new consensus”? So a scientific consensus can be wrong, after all? Hmmm.
Originally posted by links234
Thanks for the link to the senate statements, you should've read them yourself before posting.
You shouldn't be trying to twist in what context these scientists are making these remarks. Not to mention that there are some, like Cullen, who are
Other tactics used by the AGW scientific lunatics include not only publishing and posting false information knowingly, but even trying to rewrite what
the temperature data says in places like China and Russia, among others...
IEA: Hadley Center “probably tampered with Russian climate data”
An email from Jones to Mann in March 2004 stated:
Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews,
hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.
Yesterday’s report (RIA Novosti) from Russia said:
Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the
Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.
Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data
submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.
Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of
meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any
substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations
facilitating uninterrupted observations.
On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect
more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s
land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the
calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.
RIA Novosti is not responsible for the content of outside sources.
The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night
admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not
rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to
several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and
encourage them to take some concrete action.
‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’
Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because
it has no scientific foundation.
According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific,
technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.
A BRITISH climate scientist at the centre of a controversy over leaked emails is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in
temperature data on which his work was based.
An investigation of more than 2000 emails apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit has
found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations was seriously flawed.
Climate scientist Phil Jones and a collaborator have been accused of scientific fraud for attempting to suppress data that could cast doubt on a key
1990 study on the effect of cities on warming.
Dr Jones withheld the information requested under British freedom of information laws. Subsequently a senior colleague told him he feared that
Dr Jones' collaborator, Wei-chyung Wang of the University at Albany, had ''screwed up''.
The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the email scandal
and the UN's embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster
IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.
The IPCC has already been criticised for its use of information that had not been rigorously checked - in particular a false claim that all
Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.
Of 105 freedom of information requests to the University of East Anglia over the climatic research unit, which Dr Jones led until the end of
December, only 10 had been released in full.
In at least one of the emails they mention ways that they can use not to release information, and in one of the emails Jones himself jokes
....If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think Ill delete the file rather than send to
edit on 20-7-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: add links.