Is NOAA About to Crack? ‘Pausebuster’ study under intense scrutiny.

a reply to: Greven

I think that user is confused by the term "fossil fuels". The term Fossil isn't used in a true sense, but more of a misnomer. Fossil fuels were probably created during the Carboniferous Period from the vast amount of dense growth that covered the earth.

However, there is a growing ?pseudo? scientific group growing that thinks oil is produced internally to the earth from a non biological source and they use the production of methane on Titan to bolster their case.

I didn't dig too much into that aspect but I am assuming if that poster is going in that direction it is from something like this:

Source

NASA is reporting that their scientific probes have discovered methane gas in "abundance" on Titan, one of the moons of Saturn. That alone is a fact worth shouting to the rooftops. However, NASA has also had to confront the reality that, since Titan does not have an atmosphere and since there is no evidence that it ever did, the abundant methane gas must be of a "non-biologic nature"!

I have noticed some people in this group on the International Skeptics forums use the supposed fact that oil fields are naturally refilling as one proof of their argument, but those all seem to recylce a news article that is 20 years old:

Source

Geochemist Says Oil FieldsMay Be Refilled Naturally

However they ignore the paper behind it which says:

A geochemist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts says she believes that hitherto undetected gas and oil reservoirs lying at very great depths within the earth's crust could stave off the inevitable oil depletion much longer than many experts have estimated.

I don't think there is much basis for their line of "scientific" reasoning.

a reply to: imd12c4funn

Half of your links are broken, and one of them directly contradicts your premise:

Source

Evidence

Most scientists believe the evidence comes down decidedly on the side of oil forming from deceased organic matter. They point to very strong chemical evidence (so called “biomarkers”) that show hydrocarbons have an organic origin and not an inorganic origin. They also point out that various stages of hydrocarbon development have been uncovered, showing the progression from say peat all the way to anthracite coal or from algae to oil. They also argue that small quantities of hydrocarbon can be produced in laboratories, thus strong supporting their stance.

As I showed above there are plenty of papers to explain how the oil fills refill.

a reply to: imd12c4funn

I highly doubt Greven is getting his science from Fox and Friends...He has corrected me at least twice so he knows what he is talking about.

a reply to: VictorBloodworth

I don't think I've ever seen Jrod say he doesn't understand the science. I know that when it gets complicated he does distance himself but that doesn't mean he doesn't understand the basics. He usually brings relevant information to these threads. Sometimes he lets ideology drag him a little too far though

a reply to: smurfy

Now to comment on the OP. This won't go anywhere.

Yes, the tree ring data was flawed, but it still showed the same thing, just not as quickly as they had modeled it. So they were wrong to try and hide it but it STILL showed the warming trend. (The "decline" wasn't a decline it temperature, it was a decline in the trend they had modeled)

Mann's shtick has always been using proxy data (e.g. Tree Ring, Coral etc) even when actual measurements have been available. This is usually because proxy data (especially when cherry picked) shows a more drastic warming trend when actual measurements show a more mild warming trend. That's why Mann's "Champions" are all politically charged persons. In reality other climate scientists have been taking him to task much more often lately, especially with his most recent paper about the gulf streams.

What you have to understand though is that THE WARMING IS STILL THERE. Mann is just an ECO Zealot and does what he thinks he has to do to "save the planet" even if that means being SLIGHTLY dishonest with his science because even his slightly dishonest science is still "accurate".

As long as the warming is still there this agenda of catastrophic climate change will be pushed until we are 200 years down the road and still fine but just broke as all hell. All this money is wasted trying to "stop" warming when the money should be being used to adapt to the coming changes to the planet. ("Green" Ghost cities off the coast or where the coast will end up for example, China did it!) We are humans, that's what we do.

a reply to: raymundoko
Anthony Watts of wattsupwiththat.com receives funding from the heartland institute which receives funding from Exxon and other petroleum companies.

Source Watch: Anthony Watts

I posted that youtube video which Mr. Watts and friends tried to.get banned to shed some light on what Watts really stands for. It was a last minute edit add and didn't intend to imply it was proof of his Exxon funding.

a reply to: raymundoko

It's more of my lifestyle, not my ideology that makes environmental issues important to me.

I'm a surfer, sailor/mariner, fisherman, and diver. When one is constantly seeing the damage done by human activity, it makes the issue a lot more personal.

That said, while I do think.addressing climate change and curbing the anthropogenic role in it is important for this planet, I do strongly believe other issues like overfishing and pollution if the waterways is currently a much bigger threat to our species.

However climate change does play a role in overfishing/fish kills and loss of freshwater reservoirs. The Everglades is a good example.

a reply to: jrod

Your source is dishonest though. It claims he is on their payroll when he is NOT. He was a keynote speaker at a 2009 event and received a grant in 2012 to develop some software.

Your fell for the rumor that he was on the payroll, as did your source, that in 2012 he was paid 90k, however that information turned out to be a hoax from an anonymous source that they mixed in with actual stolen data.

Source

At least one of the documents alleged to have come from Heartland, titled "Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy," is a forgery apparently intended to defame and discredit The Heartland Institute. It was not written by anyone associated with The Heartland Institute. It does not express Heartland's goals, plans, or tactics. It contains several obvious and gross misstatements of fact.

So someone took real information and placed a fake "strategy" document which they were hoping would disparage HI (like it needed help) and some prominent skeptics like Watts.

In 2012 Anthony Watts was funded through the HI for app development, not his website. He was developing an app that would analyse data. The funding came from a single anonymous donor through the HI and a total of 44k of potential 90k was paid out.

So it is a dishonest stretch to say that because the HI received funds from Exxon, that Anthony Watts receives funds from Exxon. Mind you, Exxon hasn't given them any money since 2006.

Source

Exxon funding
According to spokesman Jim Lakely, Heartland received $736,500 from Exxon Mobil between 1998 and 2006.[52]

Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets website lists some of these transactions.[53] (As mentioned above, Heartland insists that Exxon has not contributed to the group since 2006.)[54]

Exxon contributions include:

$30,000 in 1998;
$115,000 in 2000;
$90,000 in 2001;
$15,000 in 2002;
$85,000 for General Operating Support and $7,500 for their 19th Anniversary Benefit Dinner in 2003;
$85,000 for General Operating Support and $15,000 for Climate Change Efforts in 2004; and
$119,000 in 2005; and
$115,000 in 2006.

Which means any funds sent to Mr Watts did NOT come from Exxon. The entire premise is based on several logical fallacies. Also, none of the funds went to the site WUWT directly. If Mr. Watts used his personal income to improve his site in 2012/2013 so what? His site was already the #1 climate site (it's true, look it up) since 2009 as he was one of the first persons to publish the climategate emails.

a reply to: raymundoko

I'm pretty sure sourcewatch.org verifies the information they post.

Regardless, Anthony Watts is not a credible source of information.

Still waiting for someone to show me how AGW theory is wrong.......

a reply to: schuyler

Carbon taxes and enforcement to pay a world levied taxation comes to mind...
I won't see that happening.

a reply to: jrod

Again, Watts was never on the payroll. A grant was issued through the HI in 2012 and that information is on SourceWatches site.

My other source showing that Exxon stopped giving HI money in 2006 was also SourceWatch, but from another page. I used them intentionally to show how they knowingly twisted information. You also need to realize SourceWatch is run by a liberal thinktank Center for Media and Democracy and:

SourceWatch[edit]
CMD hosts the SourceWatch website, a wiki, which bills itself as a "collaborative, specialized encyclopedia of the people, organizations, and issues shaping the public agenda."[29] According to the project's website, it "aims to produce a directory of public relations firms, think tanks, industry-funded organizations and industry-friendly experts that work to influence public opinion and public policy on behalf of corporations, governments and special interest groups."[30] CMD sets the editorial and security policies under which SourceWatch operates.[30][31] Unlike Wikipedia, SourceWatch does not require a "neutral point of view."[32]

It seems it's working...

So if you think that Exxon has given any money to Anthony Watts or WUWT then you are absolutely 100% wrong. Yes, HI gave him a grant in 2012 for software development but none of those funds came from Exxon. Edit: And any funds which Exxon had given had long been depleted. This is the whole basis for the accusation you repeated: That supposedly Watts get's money from Exxon through the Heartland Institute and vis-a-vis his site WUWT also gets funded. I have shown that is absolutely inaccurate as HI's work with Watts is well outside of the window of their work with Exxon.

originally posted by: tkwasny

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: smurfy

Wattsupwiththat.com receives funds from Exxon. Mr. Watts is in the business of casting doubt on climate science. Further investigation will show that the arguments made are not based on good science, instead appeal to ignorance and cognitive bias.

What evidence do you have that NASA, NOAA,and thousands of independent scientists around the world have AGW wrong, and shills like Mr. Watts got it right?


PS, all of NOAA's research is in the public domain so to claim there are NOAA whistleblowers is a bit of a stretch.

All the NOAA values that is in the public domain are doctored numbers. Thousands of scientists agree with the results off of these numbers, except the numbers are false that they are processing.

You have the available evidence to back up this assertion I presume?

a reply to: raymundoko
I suppose I jumped the gun to write wuwt is funded by Exxon, however it has been and still maybe funded by HI and we both know they get funding from Exxon and others in the petrol industry.

Sourcewatch.org is no more bias than wattsupwiththat, perhaps less bias.

I do not have any reason to.doubt that sourcewatch's claim Watts is on HI's bankroll. I'm going to need more evidence than your claim sourcewatch is disingenuous.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: jrod
Your fell for the rumor that he was on the payroll, as did your source, that in 2012 he was paid 90k, however that information turned out to be a hoax from an anonymous source that they mixed in with actual stolen data.

That information was absolutely not a hoax. Heartland just claimed it was a hoax to try and cover the whole thing up. The proof that it was not a hoax is all laid out here in this thread.

And Watts has a much more long standing relationship with Heartland than just the money he got from them in 2012. Watts' entire claim to fame comes from the publishing of this book in 2009:

Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?

^You see where that link goes? Heartland are the ones that published it. Watts has been in bed with them since the beginning.

This is an organization that questioned the health hazards of smoking and defended cigarette ads targeting children in the 90s, all while taking money from the Tobacco industry:



Now they get most of their funding from the fossil fuel industry. Whether Exxon bailed on them a few years ago is irrelevant because they still get tons of money from the Koch brothers and other shady interests, and these obvious shills carry the frickin' flag for climate change skepticism.

They've been behind Anthony Watts since his first foray into climate denial. How desperately naive does someone have to be to not see the blatant red flags all over this mess?

This is a very good vid on what was what is and what we can do to really make the changes we need to and not parrot what tptb tell us we need to do .....

a reply to: mc_squared

Nope, sorry. He got 44k, not 90. As I stated 90 (88k?) was the ceiling of the grant but he didn't use the whole thing. However, what was I responding to? JROD made the claim that Watts get's money from Exxon because he gets money from HI. HI hasn't gotten money from Exxon in a decade. The document was a hoax and even SourceWatch acknowledges that. I indeed posted he got grant money for software development in 2012. Nobody denied that. Your post is filled with logical fallacies. From my post:

In 2012 Anthony Watts was funded through the HI for app development, not his website. He was developing an app that would analyse data. The funding came from a single anonymous donor through the HI and a total of 44k of potential 90k was paid out.

You are also wrong on his claim to fame. His claim to fame was publishing the ClimateGate emails in November of 2009. It also isn't a book. It is a paper that Heartland approached him about that he had written on his own site prior to Feb 2009 when they published it as a 28 page paperback. They had him as a keynote speaker that same year because of the paper. He made no money off the book and it is listed as like #2,000,000 on the amazon list. More dishonesty on your part? Also, this paper was published in 2009, and his site was already several years old at that point and he had the entire paper available on his site. HI just put it in pretty form and Watts saw them as an outlet for his material.

From wiki:

Grant 2011, p. 302: "Watts is best known for his very heavily trafficked blog Watts Up With That?, began in 2006, which provides not just a megaphone for himself but a rallying ground for other AGW deniers, notably Christopher Monckton. The blog played an important role in the Climategate fiasco, through its dissemination of the hacked CRU emails."

According to Alexa internet statistical analysis, What's Up With That? is ranked No. 11,668 in the U.S. and No. 27,425 world-wide.[29] It is reported to receive between half a million and 2 million visits per month between 2010 and 2014.[9][30][31] It was described by climatologist Michael E. Mann in The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars as "the leading climate change denial blog,"[3][4][5][6] having surpassed Climate Audit in popularity.

As you can see his paper had nothing to do with his propulsion to the spotlight, but his activity in ClimateGate.

Yes, Watts as an individual has dealings with HI, his last confirmed dealing was a grant in 2012 for software development and before that was a speaker slot in 2009. That is HARDLY "on the payroll".

a reply to: mc_squared

I've also now had time to read your other thread. Concerning Peter Gleick:

From your source:

In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my own professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else's name.

Source

Peter Gleick, a MacArthur Foundation fellow and co-founder and president of Oakland's Pacific Institute, admitted Monday that he had posed as someone else and obtained confidential internal papers from the Heartland Institute, a libertarian group that has questioned the reality of human-caused global warming.

The trickery has nevertheless taken a devastating toll on Gleick's scientific standing. He resigned as chairman of the American Geophysical Union's task force on scientific ethics. On Tuesday, the Chronicle website, SFGate.com, dropped him from its City Brights blog page, a place where local luminaries express themselves.

However, California, where his actions were illegal, decided not to bring up charges when pressed by HI. The determined there was no intent to defraud...even though HI claims he forged a document. All other documents he provided were electronic format, yet this one single document was a scanned copy of a physical document.

In a review by the state it was determined he did not forge the document. HOWEVER Gleick states:

From your source:

At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute's climate program strategy.

He then goes on to tell how he acted as a member of the board of HI to attempt to obtain the same document from a legitimate source however THAT SPECIFIC DOCUMENT was NOT forwarded to him. Only other documents he also released. So the catch here is that he did not get the document about strategy from anyone in HI, but from an anonymous source which triggered him to commit fraud. So he had this one document, which HI claims is fake, from an anonymous source. He then also has all these other documents from an actual HI source. You are using a logical fallacy to say you have proof it isn't a hoax/forged document.

Let's get some kind of perspective here...no better, an observed perspective. First off, John Oliver's comedic, but also journalistic take on things,



The we have John Cook with, ' Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature' 2013, so no monkeying about then, it's AGW, says so on the tin..not CC, GW, and John wants to resolve the issue of why the plebs are not in total agreement with the 97%+ consensus of the AGW scientists as he explains, (while allowing for CC, GW) in the exploration of all the Plebiean dummies,



Lastly, we have Gavin Schmidt UEA, Climategate bully..(Climategate thought to be caused by a UEA fellow, a climate model..sorry a climate modeller now head of GISS talking to Roy Spencer...Oops, not talking to Roy Spencer about AGW taking the much criticised one on one media debates to a new level.


I apologise for the embarrassment of watching a fellow Englishman sitting there like a big turd being slowly devoured by rats.
Thanks to all for the contributions thus far, and indeed the additions to my learning curve. Smurfy.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
This is a very good vid on what was what is and what we can do to really make the changes we need to and not parrot what tptb tell us we need to do .....

Great video ..One of his better dissertations.. He lives in Japan... "probably on the payroll of some energy company" (sarcasm)

a reply to: 727Sky

I just found this very funny vid I had not seen before :>) may as well laugh because crying does no good at all .