Friday, November 4, 2011

Misinformation about Climate Science examined by Union of Concerned Scientists

Since I'm spending more time trying to understand the "skeptics" mind and motives I feel it is appropriate to reprint the following from the Union of Concerned Scentists which is a thoughtful examination of the tactics used by the corporate funded climate change confusion campaign... aka the echo chamber.


~ Union of Concerned Scientists ~
The Sound Science Initiative

Over the course of the 1990s climate change has come to be accepted as one of the biggest, most complex scientific and political challenges the world has ever faced. The issue is not amenable to simple solutions, and it is likely to be a pressing issue for the next century and beyond. The topic has a history spanning more than a century of scientific interest and research. The science has rapidly intensified over recent decades to build into a sound and expanding body of observational data and analytical experience. The global scientific community has coalesced under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—an independent, intergovernmental scientific body—to offer scientific advice to the world's governments.

 . .

Friday, October 21, 2011

What's Up With That Watts Spinning Svante Björck's Climate Study ?

I've been getting irritated at the froth flowing from the notorious Watts Up With That website to the point that it's worth sharing another censored post to their website. . .

WUWT's most recent slap in the face is the flow of hostile commentary toward a paper published by Svante Björck, a climate researcher at Lund University in Sweden.
It is an interesting study in how a paper can be attacked simply by feeling hostile to it's conclusions, while totally avoiding a serious look at the content of said study. 

I say this because the opening post by Watts does nothing to examine the study, nor to clearly delineate his objections.  Instead, it reminded me more of tossing meat out to a pack of hungry dogs, than any sober attempt at trying to learn about what's happening within our planet's climate.

I posted the following at his website (October 21, at about 9pm).
Basically it is a selection of reader quotes, that highlight the dearth of good-faith intellectual curiosity displayed among the WUWT crowd.   
Along with my skeptical comments.

Having WUWT's censors delete it is another example of WUWT managed misinformation fest, focused on making political mischief rather than any exercise in honest intellectual curiosity and a sincere desire to learn about the science and evidence of climatology.

But, if they delete it there, I can always post it here.

 PS, Wuwt'ers: One Directional Skepticism Equals Denial . . .
The following was posted, then deleted from the WUWT thread:  "The Durban ramp-up begins – now the Earth only warms by hemispheres, and not simultaneously – until now"
 ~ ~ ~

PeterB says: October 21, 2011 at 9:05 am
This would seem to contradict the recent studies which show that the medieval warm period was simultaneous in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. Does the author give any basis or explanation for this contradiction?
~ ~ ~
What recent studies?

Kipp C says: October 21, 2011 at 9:05 am
Dear Dr. Watts:
I very much enjoy your analyses. Please keep up the terrific work.
~ ~ ~
What Analyses?

Juraj V. says: October 21, 2011 at 9:42 am
Eat this, Svante:
~ ~ ~
What is that graph supposed to prove?  Can you explain?


P.F. says: October 21, 2011 at 9:43 am
Only back 20k? There are plenty of good studies on the Eemian Interglacial.
~ ~ ~
Such as? . . .
Why don’t you folks take the trouble to share these phantom studies? 
You know so they can be looked at with some healthy skepticism!


James G says: October 21, 2011 at 9:47 am
~ ~ ~
Very interesting story, here’s one quote from the article:
“Tying together many different lines of evidence, Nevle estimated how much carbon all those new trees would have consumed. He says it was enough to account for most or all of the sudden drop in atmospheric carbon dioxide recorded in Antarctic ice during the 16th and 17th centuries. Such a depletion of a key greenhouse gas may have helped augment Europe’s so-called Little Ice Age, centuries of cooler temperatures that followed the Middle Ages, Nevle's team has argued.”
~ ~ ~

But, I wonder what it has to do the above post?  Can you explain?

pat says: October 21, 2011 at 9:51 am
I am fairly certain I read 3 studies recently . . .
~ ~ ~
And what the heck good does that do anyone?  
Jeez, don’t you folks call yourselves “skeptics” 
Where’s The Beef?


higley7 says: October 21, 2011 at 10:13 am
I don’t care if the hemispheres do the square dance, CO2 still does not drive climate and cannot cause the climate swings he is describing. He still subscribes to the hidden need to find a major role for CO2 while ignoring the other much larger climate influences.
~ ~ ~
got anything to support your grand assertions? . . .  besides more assertions, how about some real scientific studies?

What about the facts regarding ten key climate indicators
Why doesn't any of that stuff register with you folks?

paddylol says: October 21, 2011 at 10:38 am
Should not Dr Bjorck have noted and refuted contrary research showing the events such as the RWP, MWP and LIA occurred simultaneously in both hemispheres?
~ ~ ~
Do you have a listing to offer or is it all virtual knowledge?

philip B says: October 21, 2011 at 12:52 pm
SH sea ice shows an increasing trend which has accelerated over the last several years. This is damming evidence that whatever is causing climate change, it isn’t well mixed GHGs.
~ ~ ~
Got anything besides your opinion to offer?
How about doing a little good-faith learning? Here’s an interesting link to an article that does a nice job of explaining some of these details you folks seem to willfully ignore:

Arctic Ice Volume is diminishing even more rapidly than Area
Posted on 21 October 2011 by Peter Hogarth
Including about sixty links to scientific papers so please don’t dismiss it with vacuous insults.


Lars P. says:
October 21, 2011 at 2:09 pm
The south must be having a different sun:
~ ~ ~
So what does that graph and silly one paragraph rant explain?
Can you explain?

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

Vail Valley Voices: Dr. Martin Hertzberg disputes evidence for global warming

I've been quite busy and distracted this past month, haven't written anything or even had a chance to keep up on developments. 

Sunday I finally had a break and did some catching up and what a surprise to find my old pal Dr. Martin Hertzberg ~ the explosives, not climate expert ~ is in the news.  I know Martin because we were both delegates to the 2008 Colorado Democratic Convention where I circulated my little "Memes Courier."

After reading it Martin contacted me, voicing support for my opposition to the Village at Wolf Creek boondoggle, but taking me to task for my summation of the Manmade Global Warming situation. 

He initiated a short "educational" correspondence, expecting me to adopt all of his opinions without review.  When I replied with thoughtful, polite, science focused objections to his assertions he became, shall we say touchy, then breaking off all communication.  I'll admit I thought it was mighty petty of him and indicative of the profound hollowness that seems part and parcel of the whole "denialist" movement.  Specially considering Martin initiated our correspondence.

The memory of Martin's disingenuous approach, as highlighted by his running and hiding from simple science based considerations still raises my hackles.  What are we to make of someone who makes very certain statements, while ridiculing the pros... but then refuses to reply to serious questions regarding flaws in his oh so certain broadcasting?

Thus I share the following... as another example of the deceit infused "global warming denial community."
Along with an open question: Dr. Hertzberg if your claims are real why won't you stand up and defend them in a serious polite discuss of facts and observations rather than the rhetorical emotionalizing displayed in your opinion pieces?

The text of his letter can be found at the Vail Daily:
Vail Valley Voices: Researcher disputes evidence for global warming
Martin Hertzberg

... and in the following post where I've taken the liberty of annotating Dr. Hertzberg's dubious presentation with comments and links to authoritative information sources.

In this posting I want to share something I’ve bootlegged from WottsUpWithThat
along with Dr. Michael Mann’s response to Hertzberg’s slanderous lies.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

From: WottsUpWithThat
Thanks to Michael Mann’s response, a newspaper censors a letter to the editor ex post facto

“Thanks to Michael Mann’s response, a newspaper censors a letter to the editor ex post facto“ (2011-10-02). Anthony Watts tells us that Michael Mann, lead bully of “the Team”, has forced the proud Vail Daily to withdraw a Sept. 30th, 2011 Letter to the Editor from the skeptical mind of Martin Hertzberg, titled Vail Valley Voices: Researcher disputes evidence for global warming.

Could it be that Dr. Mann found Hertzberg’s analysis so embarrassingly accurate that he had to use his secret power connections to eradicate the hated thing? Hmm. No. Dr. Mann never made any such request.

What did he do? He wrote a response on Oct. 1st, 2011 that effectively started with this:

“It’s hard to imagine anyone packing more lies and distortions into a single commentary.”

Someone at the Vail Daily, whose brain cells happened to brush up against each other, had a look and realized that Dr. Mann was right. Really, really, right. The issue suddenly wasn’t about the noble rights of the upstanding Martin Hertzberg, self-identified ”long-time denier of human-caused global warming”, to tell whopping great malicious lies. It was about whether the Vail Voice was legally exposed for carelessly spreading his false and defamatory statements. They chose to put as much distance as possible between themselves and what was clearly a piece of crap.

Anthony can’t even keep his indignation straight. He starts off implying that the Vail Daily is a noble vehicle for free speech, but turns on them with a series of nitpicking remarks intended to impugn their professionalism (does Dr. Mann live in Vail? I think not! Why the obsequious one day turnaround for Mann’s response? Why did the paper call Hertzberg a “denier”? Oh, that’s his self-description. Etc).

After all the howling it seems that the Vail Daily has re-posted the offending Letter to the Editor, apparently with some of the stupider things removed. What do we learn about Martin Hertzberg? He’s a big fan of the deceptive Oregon Petition. He knows that the greenhouse effect is “fear[ ]mongering hysteria… devoid of physical reality.” He considers anthropogenic CO2 emissions “about as significant as a few farts in a hurricane.” He’s heard of the Medieval Warm Period. He knows that diplomats and bureaucrats “have huge egos and a lust for power.” Finally, he’s a co-author of the idiotic Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory, so he’s already had his ass kicked repeatedly on the same topics. I think Martin’s journey to the dustbin of history will be a short one.

In my opinion it’s better to leave these things “up” as originally posted and insert a correction at the start so they are in legitimate context and not left as unchallenged assertions. That way Anthony’s link to the Wikipedia entry for freedom of speech need not be indignantly displayed. I think he should have, uh, censored the sentence “In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on libel, slander, obscenity, incitement to commit a crime, etc.” though, because that’s the exact issue here.

P.S. Anthony, I think your Latin’s a bit over-enthusiastic. Also the Sherlock Holmes-by-screen-capture schtick is wearing thin, especially in light of your coy pretense of ignorance about Martin Hertzberg’s denialist contributions. Don’t bury the lede.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Here is Michael Mann's letter to the Vail Valley Voice Editor:

Vail Valley Voices: Global warming denier's claims are falsehoods
Michael E. Mann
Vail, CO, Colorado

~ ~ ~
An individual named Martin Hertzberg did a grave disservice to your readers by making false and defamatory statements about me and my climate scientist colleagues in his recent commentary in your paper.

It's hard to imagine anyone packing more lies and distortions into a single commentary. Mr. Hertzberg uses libelous language in characterizing the so-called “hockey stick” -- work of my own published more than a decade ago showing that recent warming is unusual over at least the past 1,000 years -- as “fraudulent,” and claiming that it “it was fabricated from carefully selected tree-ring measurements with a phony computer program.”

These are just lies, regurgitation of dishonest smears that have been manufactured by fossil fuel industry-funded climate change deniers, and those who do their bidding by lying to the public about the science.

The highest scientific body in the nation, the National Academy of Sciences affirmed my research findings in an exhaustive independent review published in June 2006 (see e.g. “Science Panel Backs Study on Warming Climate,” New York Times, June 22, 2006, among many others).

Dozens of independent groups of scientists have independently reproduced and confirmed our findings, and more recent work by several groups shows that recent warmth is unusual over an even longer time frame.

Mr. Hertzberg then continues the smear by lying again about my work, claiming that “when those same tree-ring data actually showed a decline in temperature for the past several decades, Mann and his co-authors simply ‘hid the decline' by grafting direct measurements (inadequately corrected for the urban heat island and other effects) to his flat tree-ring line.”

That is, once again, a string of lies tied together. This statement falsely equates my work, which was not based on tree rings but rather a diverse network of different types of “proxy” climate data, with tree-ring work by an entirely different scientist, Keith Briffa of the University of East Anglia.

And it is is a highly dishonest characterization of his Briffa's work, as well, since the “decline” was a well-known problem with those particular data that Briffa was the first to describe and attempt to deal with, in the scientific literature.

Mr. Hertzberg's lies are pernicious. Their intent appears to be to do convince you that there is no harm in our continued unfettered release of carbon into the atmosphere.

It is not only us, but our children and grandchildren who will suffer the consequences of devastating changes in our environment in the years and decades to come if we listen to charlatans like Mr. Hertzberg.

Readers interested in the truth behind the science, rather than the falsehoods and smears perpetuated by people like Mr. Hertzberg, should consult the scientist-run website and, or scientifically-based books on the topic like my “Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming.”

Michael E. Mann is a professor in the Department of Meterology at Penn State University and director of Penn State Earth System Science Center.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Sunday, October 2, 2011

Martin Hertzberg... a denialist in action

This is a sequel to the previous post 

Containing the annotated copy of Martin Hertzberg's 9/30/11 letter to the Vail Daily including links to authoritative sources that give clear explanations regarding the state of our knowledge,
information that is in stark contrast to Dr. Hertzberg's profound misrepresentation.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Hertzberg's text is in purple
my comments are in black
and links are in blue
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Vail Valley Voices:
More hot air than science in global-warming theory
Martin Hertzberg
Vail, CO, Colorado

“Cherish your doubts, for doubt is the handmaiden of truth” — Robert Weston.
{“One directional skepticism equals denial” - CC}

Since I am a long-time denier of human-caused global warming and have been described as an “inaccurate” and “irresponsible” “fool” by Scott Glasser's commentary in Monday's Vail Daily, I feel compelled to respond.

~ ~ ~
{These claims simply aren’t supported by a reading of Scott Glasser’s two letters, here and here. Scott never referred to Hertzberg, nor did he do any name calling as Martin implies, as for the title given to the one letter, Martin knows this is usually done by the editor of the newspaper, not the writer.

The closest Scott gets is:
“It is intellectually dishonest and dangerous to ignore science's warnings based on inaccurate and partially understood reporting by partial non-scientists and politically motivated commentators.

Rather than argue here in the editorials, I implore any interested reader to take time and visit the vast and varied relevant scientific websites.”}
~ ~ ~ 

I am a research scientist who also served as a meteorologist for the U.S. Navy. I am also a lifelong progressive Democrat. 

For the 25 years that I have been studying the theory that human emission of carbon dioxide is causing global warming and climate change, it has never ceased to amaze me how many otherwise intelligent people, including our president, have been taken in by that scam. 

~ ~ ~
{How many detailed peer-reviewed studies has Hertzberg published explaining exactly why thousands of serious climatologists and their detailed studies are wrong?
I’m curious because what Hertzberg presents here is ideology driven politicized opining and not a review of the science.

Incidentally, below is a list of sources that clearly explain what scientists have learned, what they know and where gaps remain:

American Institute of Physics
NOAA ~ National Climatic Data Center

NASA ~ Climate change: How do we know? 

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

UCAR ~ Understanding Climate Change ~ A global warming primer }
~ ~ ~

There is a simple way to tell the difference between scientists and propagandists. If scientists have a theory, they search diligently for data that might actually contradict their theory so that they test it rigorously or refine it. If propagandists have a theory, they carefully select only the data that might agree with their theory and dutifully ignore any data that might contradict it.

~ ~ ~
{This is an excellent description of Dr. Hertzberg’s selective rhetorical rant, which you’ll notice is devoid of any good faith attempt to examine or explain the actual evidence.}
~ ~ ~

The anecdotal drivel cited in the Glasser article regarding atmospheric carbon dioxide, average global temperatures, ice area coverage and rate of sea-level rise was carefully cherry picked or is totally false.

~ ~ ~ 
{This Herztberg calls drivel:
“Also, from NASA:
* Carbon dioxide, an important greenhouse gas, now at 391 ppm, highest concentration in 650,000 years, and has accelerated tremendously since 1950 when it was only 280 (look at the graph).
* Global temperature has increased an average of 1.5 F since 1860.
* Arctic sea ice at a minimum in 2007, losing ice on average at 11.5 percent per decade.
* Sea level has risen 4-8 inches over the past century, rising 3.27mm per year.
* Greenland ice loss doubled between 1995 and 2005.
* Antarctic sea ice losing 24 cubic miles of ice per year since 2002.”
Notice Hertzberg doesn’t address Glasser’s points, merely calling it nonsense and moving on expecting us to accept his opinion.

Speaking of shrinking cryosphere, here’s the latest on the Arctic
PIOMAS September 2011 (volume record lower still)}
~ ~ ~

For the totality of the available data for the past several decades, go to The data show nothing remarkable — just the normal variability in all those weather-related parameters.

~ ~ ~
{It’s nonsensical to claim that climate4you contains “the totality of the available data.”
Dr. Humlum’s blog is an interesting mix of fact and manipulation. For more details here are a couple interesting articles explaining some of climate4you’s misleading interpretation of data.

Humlum is at it again }
~ ~ ~

Knowledgeable scientists, including the more than 30,000 such as myself who have signed the Oregon Petition (a), know that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide do not correlate with human emission of carbon dioxide(b), that human emission is a trivial fraction of sources and sinks of carbon dioxide(c), that the oceans contain about 50 times more dissolved carbon dioxide than is present in the atmosphere(d), that recycling of carbon dioxide from the tropical oceans where it is emitted to the arctic oceans where it is absorbed is orders of magnitude more significant than human emissions(e), and that the carbonate-bicarbonate buffer in the oceans makes their acidity (actually their alkaline pH) virtually insensitive to changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide (f). 

~ ~ ~ 
{Invoking the Oregon Petition is a red flag in itself considering what a fraud that project turned out to be.
Starting with the shady character of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine itself, 
to Frederick Seitz’s cover opinion dressed up in the form of a well crafted NAS study, 
to the unqualified nature of it’s ideology driven signees. 

In fact the fraud prompted the National Academy of Sciences to release a statement April 20, 1998: 
"The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this (Oregon) petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal."[15]

Here’ are a couple interesting videos reviewing OISM by Peter Sinclair

32000 Scientists   

(a) Climate Change: A Consensus Among Scientists? ~ December 23, 2009

For another look at the numbers and signees 

(b) Comparing CO2 emissions to CO2 levels 

(c) Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing  ?

Time-lapse history of human global CO2 emissions 

(d) not sure what the point is, but here’s some interesting information...
Chapter 4: Global Energy Transfer, Atmosphere and Ocean Circulation, Climate 

(e) this ignores that human emissions are above and beyond the natural flux...
The Carbon Cycle and Earth's Climate 
(g) The Acid Ocean – the Other Problem with CO2 Emission

NASA Educational Workshop ~ SeaWiFS: Ocean Chemistry
The Basics of Ocean Chemistry: Carbon, Circulation, and Critters  }
~ ~ ~

The data for the glacial coolings and interglacial warmings for the past 500,000 years always show that temperature changes precede atmospheric carbon-dioxide changes by about 1,000 years (a). That indicates that temperature changes are driving carbon-dioxide changes and not the reverse as the Gore-Hansen-IPCC clique claims (b). As oceans warm for whatever reason, they emit carbon dioxide, and as they cool they absorb carbon dioxide (c).

~ ~ ~
(a) Why does Hertzberg ignore the understanding behind those historic trends or why those events do not relate to current society injected GHG’s effect. Dr. Richard Alley does a great job of explaining the current understanding in this lecture:
“The Biggest Control Knob ~ Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Climate History”  

(b) It indicates no such thing and why all those cheap shots?

(c) Notice Hertzberg does nothing to explain what this has to do with the tremendous amounts of society produced GHGs being injected into the atmosphere above and beyond the natural background flux.
~ ~ ~

The carbon-dioxide “greenhouse effect” argument on which the fearmongering hysteria is based is actually devoid of physical reality.(a) The notion that the colder atmosphere above can reradiate its absorbed infrared energy to heat the warmer earth below violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.(b) For details, see “Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory,” co-authored by myself and several other scientists, which was published earlier this year by Stairway Press.

~ ~ ~
(a) More insults rather than presenting facts, but what’s a denier to do when the facts dispute their ideologically driven preconceptions?

(b) The Second Law, Radiative Transfer, and Global Warming  

The greenhouse effect and the 2nd law of thermodynamics  }
~ ~ ~

In any case, if one compares the effect of water in all of its forms (polar ice, snow cover, oceans, clouds, water vapor in the atmosphere) with that of human emission of carbon dioxide, the carbon-dioxide emission is about as significant as a few farts in a hurricane.

~ ~ ~
{What’s a statement like this supposed to mean? Except perhaps an attempt at emotionalizing the question, rather than examining it with intellectual integrity.

Why does Hertzberg ignore the CO2 water vapor connection?
Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works   }
~ ~ ~

Glasser, who calls me a fool (a), really tips his hand by defending the notoriously fraudulent “hockey stick” curve of Professor Mann(b). That curve has the shape of a hockey stick, flat for the past 1,000 years with a sharp rise during the past few decades(c). It was fabricated from carefully selected tree-ring measurements with a phony computer program(d).

~ ~ ~
(a) No he doesn’t! Look for yourself:
here and here 

It’s as big a lie as his next statements.

(b) Is the hockey stick broken? 

Hockey stick replaced with a hockey team  

(c) No it isn’t! See the graph for yourself 

(d) Nonsense! 
A Review of Michael Mann's Exoneration  

NAS hockey stick report }
~ ~ ~

Every knowledgeable climatologist knows that tree rings are unreliable proxies for temperature because they are also sensitive to moisture, sunlight, pests, competition from adjacent trees, etc. (a). Furthermore, when those same tree-ring data actually showed a decline in temperature for the past several decades, Mann and his co-authors simply “hid the decline” by grafting direct measurements (inadequately corrected for the urban heat island and other effects) to his flat tree-ring line(b).

~ ~ ~
(a) More nonsense, see
Keith Briffa & Tim Osborn: Tree-ring data  

NOAA Paleoclimatology ~ Tree Ring  

(b) For the rest of the story see: 
Why climatologists used the tree-ring data ‘trick’ 

Clearing up misconceptions regarding 'hide the decline'  

Tree-ring proxies and the divergence problem 
~ ~ ~

Knowledgeable climatologists knew that the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings settled Greenland(a) and grapes grew in northern England(b), was much warmer than today and that its presence in all regions of the world was overwhelming(c). Similarly for the Roman Warm Period that preceded it and for a whole series of natural warmings and coolings until one gets back to the big one: the interglacial cooling of about 20,000 years ago (d).

~ ~ ~
{(a) "The Medieval Warming Crock" 

(b) English vineyards again…  

(c) More claims that aren’t supported with any facts.
Medieval Warm Period not so random  

(d) No supporting data, nor mention that climatologists do understand the various drivers of climate and how they behaved during various periods.

Review of Paleoclimates. Understanding climate change past and present, by Thomas M. Cronin (2010). New York: Columbia University Press. 441 pp. ISBN 978-0-231-14494-0.}
~ ~ ~

And that all happened without any significant human emission of carbon dioxide.

~ ~ ~
{No climatologist claims that past climate didn’t change!

In fact they have studied past change in excruciating detail and have developed a very self consistent and evidence backed understanding of the various factors that influenced these early changes to a reasonably high degree of accuracy. 

Dr Hertzberg also neglects to mention that the known driving factors of those past climate changes are not major players in today’s transitioning climate. 

These days we have a new and historically unique element in the mix, that is society produced greenhouse gases on the order of two and a half gigatons every month, over and above the background flux}
~ ~ ~

The conclusions being promulgated by the scientifically illiterate diplomats who control the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are fraudulent concoctions that have already been denounced by many of its scientific members.

~ ~ ~
{Hertzberg again ignores the supposed topic only to reduce himself to this schoolyard bully name calling? Traditionally though it is the class idiot who is the first one to call the teacher an idiot. Hertzberg thinks that simply by calling people names and insulting their intelligence he’s got the right to ignore the substance of their findings and reports. Shame on him.

Sad truth is that all the evidence in the world is worthless if one willfully ignores it!}
~ ~ ~

Those diplomats, like the bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency, have huge egos and a lust for power. That is far more important to them than the triviality of scientific truth. Once committed to one side of such an issue, they will rarely admit that they have made a mistake. Once having invested their political capital and our economic resources to start the huge, massive inertia wheel turning, it takes too much courage, energy and loss of face to stop it.

~ ~ ~
{Again bully name calling, devoid of any substance or explanation, but we are only supposed to accept Hertzberg’s obvious prejudiced opinion as gospel? 
And speaking of rampaging egos, it takes a lot of chutzpa to indict a whole field of dedicated full-time scientists.}

~ ~ ~ 

That was the case with the war in Vietnam and currently with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

~ ~ ~
{Interestingly, it was the same group of people in “think tanks” and right wing activist organizations who pushed this country into those insane wars... who are today pushing the global warming is a hoax nonsense.
All dedicated to retaining the status quo and doing nothing about a “corporate free market plan” that has brought our nation and world to the brink of economic and well as environmental destruction.
And Hertzberg implies that this same myopic tunnel visioned group of “masters of the universe” should be trusted to deal with the growing climate crisis that is knocking on our front door.}
~ ~ ~

The conclusions of the IPCC need to be repudiated lest they continue to discredit the United Nations' legitimate functions: its programs to improve the standard of living of the underdeveloped nations, its programs to combat hunger and poverty, its support of the conventions against genocide and torture, and its support of the International Criminal Court's prosecution of war criminals.

~ ~ ~
{Speaking of drivel, please note Martin’s letter totally sidesteps the science of global warming, while ignoring our society’s dependence upon benign weather patterns. Instead it is another collection of innuendo and insults of the sort denialists have developed into a high art form dedicated to deceive and confuse... and above all to encourage willful ignorance.
Shame on you Martin}
~ ~ ~

Dr. Martin Hertzberg writes from Copper Mountain.

Thursday, September 1, 2011

Tim DeChristopher. . . A Citizen With True Grit

Courtesy of Greenman 3610

More and more of the media driven perceived-wisdom is focused on ourselves and “what can it do for me” thinking.

This attitude has allowed us collectively to disregard our natural world: the biosphere, the environment, our climate, our life support system. Instead believing the Reaganomics siren song of endlessly increasing consumption and maximizing profits . . .

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Ryan Maue, hurricanes & ACE (accumulated cyclone energy)

I received a comment that I believe deserves it's own post:
T said...
I think that in denying the Denier, you might have missed this: hurricane ACE (accumulated cyclone energy) levels are historically low levels - worldwide, according to Dr. Ryan Maud.

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Hurricane Irene, Dr. Landsea. . . while the beat goes on. . .

The following post is from over at SkepticForum where I have sort of a dialogue with a couple "skeptics." Seems to me this one touches on the crux of our contemporary situation so I've decided to copy* it over here for whatever it's worth.

While the beat goes on. . .
Post #26  by citizenschallenge » Mon Aug 22, 2011 9:41 pm
{*Actually this is based on post #26 since reflecting on it, I've edited it some.}

Powerful Hurricane Irene heads toward Bahamas, US
By EZEQUIEL ABIU LOPEZ, Associated Press – 8/22/11

Irene grew into a Category 2 hurricane late Monday and the U.S. National Hurricane Center in Miami said it could become a monstrous Category 3 storm as early as Tuesday.

"We didn't anticipate it gaining this much strength this early,"
said center meteorologist Chris Landsea,
adding that the ocean's warm temperatures and the current atmosphere is "very conducive" to energizing storms.


Consider the implications of the above admission.

Please no more old time "a single-storm-tells-us-nothing" jazz,
I'm talking about global dynamics influenced by global alterations brought about by increased total system energy.

Then consider the implication of what we see reflected in our contemporary global weather.
Case in point Hurricane Irene, she seems to vindicate Trenberth's summation of the situation way more than Landsea's dismissal. {and sorry Y, but that dramatic IPCC resignation letter Landsea wrote is all about politics containing no actual science.}

Point here is: these are the dynamics at work and this is the way things are.
We're witnessing it!
Just like the establishment climatologists have been trying so hard to explain to us.

And I guess my point with posting this is that the reality of the situation is even surprising Dr. Landsea, of skeptic fame.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Back to Trenberth's summation of the situation that so upset Y and that's being so ruthlessly flogged around the echo chamber. Dr. Trenberth’s summation should be thought about, rather than derided with contrived misdirection.

Haven't these ridiculous fraternity mind games gone on long enough?
What will it take before we all, collectively, start taking this stuff serious?
It's the real mccoy out there and we get no second chances!

Powerful Hurricane Irene heads toward Bahamas, US
By EZEQUIEL ABIU LOPEZ, Associated Press – 8/22/11
... Irene is forecast to grow into a Category 3 hurricane late Tuesday as it moves over the warm waters of the Turks and Caicos Islands and the southeastern Bahamas, and could maintain that strength as it nears the U.S. coast.
Florida residents were urged to ensure they had batteries, drinking water, food and other supplies.
"We must prepare for the worst and hope for the best," said Joe Martinez, chairman of the Miami-Dade County Commission.

When will the ideologically based skeptics start taking such advice more seriously?

Let's examine the statement that upset Dr. Landsea.

You can find Dr. Landsea IPCC resignation letter here. The comments section is worth reviewing. To me the most insightful comment came from Dan Kirk-Davidoff, Asst. Professor of Meteorology, U. Maryland. I copy it below:

Posted by: Daniel Kirk-Davidoff at January 31, 2005 10:00 AM:
Here's what Trenberth said:
"Human activities are changing the composition of the atmosphere and global warming is happening as a result," says Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at NCAR and a convening lead author of the 2007 IPCC report for the chapter on observed changes.

"Global warming is manifested in many ways, some unexpected. Sea level has risen 1.25 inches in the past 10 years as a result of warming of the oceans and glacier melting.

"The environment in which hurricanes form is changing. The result was a hurricane in late March 2004 in the South Atlantic, off the coast of Brazil: the first and only such hurricane in that region. Several factors go into forming hurricanes and where they track.

But the evidence strongly suggests more intense storms and risk of greater flooding events, so that the North Atlantic hurricane season of 2004 may well be a harbinger of the future."

This does not sound so different from what Landsea acknowledges in his letter to Trenberth.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The conversation continues

Saturday, August 20, 2011

Open letter to President Sullivan of the University of Virginia, regarding the Political Witch Hunt of Dr. Michael Mann

The following is a response to the situation going at the University of Virginia as described at my previous post Reporting from the War On Science frontlines: Ask U.VA to Protect Its Scientists from the Political Witch Hunt

This is my open letter to President Sullivan of the University of Virginia

WitsEndnj.blogspot - Air Pollution, Ozone, CO2 & Dying Trees

This is basically a For Your Information post regarding an information resource extraordinaire

Anyone doing a research project involving aspects of atmospheric pollutants be it Acid Rain, or low altitude Ozone, air pollutants, or CO2’s other problems here is a website of literally hundreds of relevant resources that Gail Zawacki, and friends, has put together at WitsEnd blog.

BASIC PREMISE + Research Links about Dying Trees

Friday, August 19, 2011

Union of Concerned Scientist's compilation of the Scientific Consensus

Supplement to the "CONSENSUS" discussion at Center for Inquire and SkepticForum.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Here is a list compiled by the Union of Concerned Scientists presenting the “consensus” as formalized by a great many scientific organizations.

I've done this because the issue of "consensus," and the way the contrarian community has bastardized it, becomes more important with every new unreasoned politically motivated attack on science we witness. Thus, it is worth considering in more detail, and that's why I've brought it up at a couple discussion boards.

This is an appendix of supporting documentation


Scientific Consensus on Global Warming

Thursday, August 18, 2011

Joe Bastardi ~ Meteorological Malpractice examined

Recently, I’ve been increasingly disturbed by the escalating war on science. An example of this trend is the national exposure a blatant liar such as AccuWeather’s Joe Bastardi is afforded.

Joe Romm, at had put a lot of effort into compiling a number of investigative reports following the track record of meteorological malpractice Bastardi has established.

See if the evidence doesn’t have you agreeing with Joe Romm that AccuWeather should be ashamed to have such a man broadcasting his deception over their networks. In fact, considering the legal harassment Michael Mann has been subjected to for doing diligent science, why isn’t Joe Bastardi being prosecuted for his out and out frauds and for the willful misinformation he is spreading nationally? It's as though truth just don't matter to these folks.

The first part is based on

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

This is Not Cool. Heatwave 2011.

Brought to you courtesy of YouTube's Greenman3610 Channel

I've shared this with my pals over at SkepticForum and received the following reply:

Monday, August 15, 2011

Reporting from the War On Science frontlines: Ask U.VA to Protect Its Scientists from the Political Witch Hunt

Reading a recent post over at Scott Mandia's Global Warming: Man or Myth? blog I decided I needed to share an unabridged version over here.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Ask U.VA to Protect Its Scientists from the Political Witch Hunt

Please read this Washington Post editorial and consider sending a message to University of Virigina officials.
I sent the letter posted here to President Teresa Sullivan,
Carol Wood (Assistant Vice President for Public Affairs),
Richard Kast (Associate General Counsel),
and Susan Harris (Secretary to the Board of Visitors).
Academic freedom is at stake and we do not want another climategate false controversy which is what I see coming.

Reporting from the War On Science frontlines: AGU, AAUP, CSW, UCS Open Letter to the University of Virginia

Here is some background information to the above post regarding the attack on science occurring at the University of Virginia.

Monday, August 8, 2011

A link between climate change and Joplin tornadoes? Never!

I'm active in a couple discuss forums with some AGW "skeptics" and something that increasingly perplexes me is their ability to ignore the full scope of climate changes as witnessed by the past two decades and specially these past two years of increasingly freakish weather events.

Try as I might I fail at making a dent. Today I came across this video reproduction of an editorial written by Bill McKibben, long time Earth Science reporter. To be blunt, it presents our situation with the sober clarity of a much needed slap in the face.

As I said over at the SkepticForum: "I'd be curious if anyone had any thoughts to share... " If you're so inclined join the "discussion"

Thank you

This video takes Bill McKibben’s recent editorial from the Washington Post {"A link between climate change and Joplin tornadoes? Never!"}
sets it to music and video of last year’s weather events.


UP DATE February 24, 2012
Heartland Institute's private financial records and goals were leaked recently causing all sorts of uproar.
What they expose is that Heartland Institute is 100% issue based, they see scientific learning and understanding reality as a hinderance to their agenda... something to abhor.

Over at I've been making a collection of important articles that document events as they unfold.

Here's one that certainly stands out:

David Suzuki'
"It's Time That Climate-Change Deniers Were Exposed."

Saturday, August 6, 2011

Comparing the WMD hoax, with the alleged AGW hoax

I participate over at where I found myself inspired to write this post. Maybe it’s just a rant, but it’s a rant I now feel like depositing at this website. If anyone is curious about the discussion please do visit
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

quoting CC:
Amazing paragraph, no conspiracy: "does have big budget," "doesn't pay credible scientists," "instead paying the media" (to misreport?)... not a hint of conspiracy thinking to be found. :?
quoting M.B.:
No. The mind numbingly predictable reporting of an infotainment industry, as well as the political class, peddling anything exciting the basest emotions is not a conspiracy. It's only what I've learned to expect. AGW hysteria is only more of the same. Maybe you've forgotten "weapons of mass destruction" already. I haven't.

How strange that you would bring up the Weapons Of Mass Destruction. OK, it’s off topic but why not look at this WMD hoax...

Monday, August 1, 2011

“On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” reviewed

A new paper by Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell (SB11) titled, “On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” has taken the climate change blogosphere by storm. First, the usual contrarians lead by James Taylor of the Heartland Institute broadcast their spin on the study and it has gone viral in the echo-chamber.

But, the hounds of scientific justice were on their trail in no time, striving to re-inject some realism and set the story straight. I've listed various authoritative reviews and investigations into the Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell's claims.

First though, a summation of the basic issues..., Heartland... JamesTaylor's censored discussion "global warming is good for food crops." Say what?

Recently the media has gone all a twitter with the latest global warming hype. This time the headline reads Roy Spencer: “New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism.”

In marketing Roy Spencer's paper Heartland's senior fellow for environment policy and managing editor of Environment & Climate News has been given the podium where he has made some very myopic comments regarding the robust condition of world agriculture...

Sunday, July 31, 2011, Heartland... JamesTaylor's censored discussion re. "New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism"

Recently the media has gone all a twitter with the latest global warming hype. This time the headline reads Roy Spencer: “New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism.”

From the looks of it one James Taylor the senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News is being the PR shepherd of this latest attempt to confuse people. Over at Mr. Taylor has challenged all comers with a sneer. Yet thoughtful, polite if pointed posts to this blog are being lost in moderator limo.

Since my series of thoughtful questioning posts to the discussion forum - the one concerned with Heartland Institute’s James Taylor’s marketing of Roy Spencer’s latest study - have been languishing for an inordinate amount of hours, days in the Forbes/Taylor moderator limbo, I’ve decided to post them over here...

Monday, July 4, 2011

What NCAR's Kevin Trenberth actually said at 2004 Harvard News Conference

This post is sort of an addendum to a post at regarding the echo-chambers accusations, fueled by Chris Landsea's IPCC resignation letter, that Kevin Trenberth has lied. Interestingly, when reading the actual transcript I can't find where, or what Trenberth was supposed to have lied about.

I went through the transcript and culled out important statements. Since I can't share so many quotes at SkepticForum, I figured I'd post the collection over here in case anyone wants to read what Trenberth actually had to say as opposed to just accepting others agenda driven mis-characterizations...

Friday, June 3, 2011

Playing Games With Global Warming. . . an essay

This is the final version of an essay who's working title was:
"Mann's "hockey stick graph" and McIntyre et al. examined."
Printed in the Four Corners Free Press June 2011 issue.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
{859 words}
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Perhaps the most enduring argument AGW “skeptics” use against the scientific consensus regarding manmade global warming is attacking something called the “Mann hockey stick graph.”

What’s a hockey stick got to do with understanding global warming? Well, it goes back to the 1980s and 90s.

Monday, May 23, 2011

Unauthorized notes, ~ Ben Santer ~ The General Public: Why Such Resistance?

Today I was asked if there's a transcript available of the Ben Santer talk. To the best of my knowledge there is none. However, when I hear an especially good lecture, I'll return to it and do some detailed note taking along with transcribing specially valuable sections... I find it an excellent learning exercise.

So below are my notes, transcribed sections are in "quotes," the rest is paraphrased, with any personal commentary in {brackets}.

It isn't as polished as it should be and unfortunately right now I don't have the time to invest, however at some point I will return and clean this up...

Friday, May 20, 2011

Integrity of Stephen McIntyre examined... a review by Real Climate

The following is a collection of posts from a website put together by real climatologists, folks who actually publish real peer-reviewed articles - as opposed to being wrapped within a non-peer reviewed media machine as is the case with the famous Stephen McIntyre - the mining engineer, investment promoter, and the statistician who thinks his personal intellectual powers permit him to stand judge and jury over the entire establishment climatology community and decades worth of research.

Over at the he has a great defender who's constantly challenging me to provide evidence for McIntyre's deception, yet rejects all that doesn't agree with her outlook. But, like I keep trying to remind her, One Directional Skepticism Equals Denial.

So for folks out there who are interested in what the brains have to say about the controversies and misperceptions being peddled by Mr. McIntyre here is a little collection.

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Auditing Stephen McIntyre, anatomy of a deception

Considering my conversations of the past couple days I believe it is time to share a little information from a website that has had the opportunity to delve into the modus operandi of Stephen McIntyre the Canadian mining engineer, investment promoter and statistician who has become the darling of the denier blogosphere and who is quite adept at stirring up passions.

Unfortunately, his dedication to the principles of science as a learning tool aren't among his priorities ~ this man's priority is championing a political agenda. The Free Market of drill baby drill, burn baby burn, in total disregard for consequences.

Pushing an attitude of Willfully Ignoring what climatology and other Earth sciences are telling us, he believes that with wisps of statistical tricks he has upended decades of climatology knowledge.

What's up with that Watts?

Since Anthony Watts felt the need to delete my post from his forum and thus my ability to defend myself and present the other side of this debate, I'll post it here {with an additional sentence or two}.

What's up with the climate?

A little sequel to my previous post. It's a cut and paste of another post of mine over at I collected a few stories.

K, {plus Mr. Watts and clan} it isn't a game.
How do you manage to show so much contempt for the establishment climatology community and its considered opinion ~ as dramatized by your obsession with McIntyre's statistical machinations and such dog-chasing-tail arguments ~ in the face of all this stuff going on in the real world?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I just wish I could figure out how you folks rationalize that...
. . . with this

What's up with that climate debate?

This website is a modest homemade affair, my visitation is low and discussion zero. That's fine this started as just a place to post and hopefully share my essays.

However, I do enjoy discussion and am quite active at the Skeptic Society forum's "Climate Change" board. I invite anyone interested in some, hopefully, serious discussion to join us.

I bring this up because of a tiny exchange between Anthony Watts and myself, followed by this post over at Skepticforum:

Monday, May 9, 2011

Mann's "hockey stick graph" and McIntyre et al. examined ;-)

Perhaps the most enduring argument AGW “skeptics” use against the scientific consensus regarding manmade global warming is attacking the “Mann hockey stick graph.”

What’s a hockey stick got to do with understanding global warming? Well, it goes back to the 1980s and 90s. With the flood of new atmospheric and Earth Observation data scientists began to search for ways of discovering past climate changes in order to put the new information into historical perspective.

Scientists realized there were many natural “proxies” that recorded climate conditions as they grew. Trees, glaciers, all kinds of geologic depositions on land, under lakes and oceans. They reasoned that it should be possible to learn how to tease out climate information from such proxies.

Michael Mann and a team of pioneering researchers focused on tree-ring proxy studies.

Sunday, May 8, 2011

Frauenfeld,Knappenberger,Michaels 2011: No Worries

I heard kind of a sick joke today, but it was so spot on I couldn't help but giggle:
"Global warming contrarians are like those sad chimpanzees who continue carrying their long dead babies."
Get it... talk about denial!

Talking about denial. . .
here is the latest scientific study to be ricocheting through the denier blogosphere ~ "Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011"
it claims:

Thursday, May 5, 2011

Ben Santer: This is what a scientist sounds like.

I came across a five star lecture that I feel like sharing.

{ I appear to be having technical issues with links in this post - you can find properly functioning links at the CFI Discussion Forum }
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

PhD. Ben Santer and the climate debate -
“The General Public: Why Such Resistance?”

Ben Santer giving a hour long lecture at Stanford University, with nearly as much Q&A afterwards.

It begins with an introduction from the late great Stephen Schneider where he takes the time to explain what happened at the infamous IPCC plenary where-after Ben Santer was slandered with false charges of having manipulated Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC report. It's a fascinating, revealing story. Then its on to the main show...

... Presented in three stanzas:
~ Science ~
~ Non-science ~
~ Nonsense ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

It begins with the UAH Satellite temperature records

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Hide The Decline ~ an examination by Greenman3610

If you are curious about the details behind “Mann's Nature trick to hide the decline” meme and its denialists presentation - check out this
Climate Denial Crock of the Week video:
Unwinding “Hide the Decline”
Fresh out of the oven.
April 28, 2011

Here are some quick reference notes:

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Prof Stewart explains "How The Earth Made Us"

Over the past week I’ve been watching
Geology Professor Iain Stewart’s BBC production:
How The Earth Made Us
, a truly epic five part series.

Absolutely fascinating stuff and a reminder that there’s always more to discover and learn from. For the receptive this series will amaze and leave you with a greater appreciation for how our planet has nurtured humanity and made civilizations possible.

The quote at 23:45 of "#5 Human Planet" really got my attention:
“If you add together all the landscapes we’ve altered, our cities, towns villages, farms (mining, etc) then 75% of the Earth’s ice free land mass owes it appearance to us.” {that is, reflects society’s impact.}
Somewhere else he points out that 5 times as much water is held in our reservoirs as is held in Earth’s rivers. Our impact is immense, but our appreciation so shallow... Professor Stewart is doing an excellent job of helping fill the gap.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I’ve found that this series is also available on courtesy of historyforall.

How Earth Made Us -1/5- Water

How Earth Made Us -2/5- Deep Earth

How Earth Made Us -3/5- Wind

How Earth Made Us -4/5- Fire

How Earth Made Us -5/5- Human Planet

But, CO2 Is Plant Food !

And then there’s the "But CO2 Is Plant Food" meme.

Someone by the moniker of Dawei has posted a very informative collection of studies over at concerning different aspects of an increasingly CO2 enriched atmosphere. It seems that things aren't quite as simple as that. The true story is much more complicated and not near as reassuring.

It's a complicated image and Dawei has done a great job of reviewing the wide range of available literature,

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

“Let The Free Market Address Conservation” Say What?

“Let The Free Market Address Conservation” the headline proclaimed. Say what? Leave the “free market” alone to address our environmental crisis as it sees fit? You mean the “free market” that sent USA manufacturing jobs overseas, effectively gutting the future of America’s middle class? The “free market” that is bulldozing mountain after mountain in the Appalachians only to fill in valley after productive valley with rubble and poisonous tailings?

The same “free market” dedicated to maximizing profits while minimizing liabilities by making them someone else’s problem or ignoring them? The “free market” that doesn’t plan for long term maintenance as reflected in the sorry state of America’s infrastructure of bridges, water treatment facilities, etc.? The “free market” that is cutting social programs to the bone, while continuing its faith-based diplomacy by bombs and an ever increasing military/industrial/political complex?

The “free market” that establishes “think tanks” such as Marshall Institute, Heartland Institute, SPPI, and more? Who have developed the art of deception and mass media propaganda to the level that with smoke and mirrors they can make a tiny clique of politically motivated contrarians seem like “half the scientific community” to gullible folks - while broadcasting dishonest spins on the science that a serious high school science class could drive through.

“Free market” is an Orwellian triumph of words over substance. Where’s the freedom when 2% of the richest adults in the world own more than half of all wealth and when half the world’s population owns barely 1% of all wealth?

To imagine that our “free market” leaders, or forces, care one fig about the welfare of future generations is to ignore a couple hundred years worth of human history. The “free market” may be excellent at extracting and consuming - but sustaining something for future generations is simply not within it’s bubble of awareness, let alone concern.

Friday, April 8, 2011

From The Halls of Montezuma

Here's an update to the previous post.

With some support and help from Daniel Bailey I had a post accepted at

From The Halls of Montezuma
Posted on 9 April 2011

Thursday, March 24, 2011

USA Navy's Chief Oceanographer David Titley

USA Navy's Chief Oceanographer David Titley was a long time serious skeptic regarding anthropogenic global warming. Still this man has to pay attention to what's happening on this planet and its oceans. He has had a change of heart and has some thoughts to share.
Seems to me this guy's opinion ought to carry a little weight. Check it out:

Monday, February 28, 2011

Planned Parenthood attacked by Colorado Rep. Tipton

Admittedly anthropogenic global warming is my pet issue, but I am aware of the rest of the world. Recently, I felt compelled to weigh in on the US House of Representatives plans to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood, an organization of critical health importance to women, couples and families.

Since Planned Parenthood is overshadowed by the abortion question I want to point out an essay written long ago, but that remains unsurpassed in it's humane examination of the issue: "Abortion, Right and Wrong" By Rachel Richardson Smith
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

{The following is my letter sent to Congressman Tipton
and the Durango Herald - 3/6/11}:

Tipton Playing Politics With Women's Lives

Open letter to Congressman Tipton,
Recently, I called US Representative Tipton’s office to voice my objection to a bill (later passed) for cutting off funding for Planned Parenthood. I said it was a short sighted self-destructive choice. He sent me a reply starting off his justification for voting to shut down funding for Planned Parenthood: “I believe in protecting the sanctity of all human life. . .”

Friday, February 25, 2011

Another Climategate investigation, another vindication for scientists

Hot off the press, another investigation into the stolen CRU emails, and once again it was found that the scientists acted in good faith and are innocent of the extreme charges the media echo-chamber has been fabricating.
Sadly many will claim it just proves how all encompassing the scientific conspiracy is.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Inspector General’s Review of Stolen Emails Confirms No Evidence of Wrong-Doing by NOAA Climate Scientists
Report is the latest independent analysis to clear climate scientists of allegations of mishandling of climate information

Thursday, February 24, 2011

Professor Ian Plimer ~ what a skeptic looks like

Professor Ian Plimer wrote "Heaven and Earth" debunking current climatologist's "consensus."

He’s a professor, we can trust him.
But what kind of professor writes books about climatology? A heavily invested Mining Geologist? Hmmm ... of course, so why shouldn’t he write about climatology portraying himself as an impartial expert? Not just any impartial expert, but the impartial expert poised to expose the seamy underbelly of the global climatology community. No matter, if his book reports science honestly it belongs. But, we the people, do have a right to expect him to portray that science accurately!

Geology Professor Plimer’s book “Heaven and Earth” promises

Sunday, February 20, 2011

Why We Need The IPCC

On February 19th the US House Republicans voted 244-179 to kill funding for the International Panel on Climate Change because they claim we can’t trust them and we don’t need their information anyways. (The bill has yet to pass the Senate.)

To appreciate why such thinking is shortsighted we need to understand what the IPCC actually is.

Friday, February 4, 2011

Highlights Index

The Denial Machine Keeps Cranking... an essay
January 20, 2011

“The Great Global Warming Swindle” is itself a Fraud and a Swindle ~ by Bill Butler ~
December 30, 2010

Open Letters to Lord Monckton and SPPI
{#11a} SPPI, Monckton, Seitz, WSJ - anatomy of a character assassination
{#11b} Monckton, Ferguson, SPPI, v. Dr. Ben Santer - anatomy of a character assassination
{#11c} Monckton, Ferguson, SPPI, v. Dr. Rajendra Pachauri (IPCC) - anatomy of a character assassination

August 10, 2010

Climate Change & Contrarians
March 7, 2010
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Regarding the speculative Village at Wolf Creek development please visit:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Olden Goldies:
Reflections On Justice Sotomayor’s Confirmation Process
August 14, 2009
An Essay Concerning Our Weather
Nov/Dec 1995 and Nov/Dec 2005
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

August, 2008:
Why start this blog?

A historic snafu in need of revisiting

There They Go Again........

What is Science's Sin?

God flowing into the Word

Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Viscount Lord Monckton update ~

The information regarding Lord Monckton's political theater and mutilation of scientific data keep growing in leaps and bounds.

At Skeptical John Cook has gathered a treasure trove
and organized it under various headings:

Thursday, January 20, 2011

The Denial Machine Keeps Cranking... an essay

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Printed in the Four Corners Free Press, February 2011
{Although the following has been edited.}

I understand no one should simply take my word on anything.
Therefore, I've added forty-five links to sources that offer educational information supporting my claims.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

What a long strange trip it's been. Forty years ago I was a bright eyed high school science student learning about greenhouse gases and the atmosphere and how those processes related to this incredibly fruitful climate our society has been enjoying compared to previous periods during our Earth’s evolution.

Saturday, January 8, 2011

UAH's John Christy's US House Ways & Means Committee testimony... examined

Here is another review I posted over at Skeptics Society Forum, since it contains many valuable links for seekers of climate information I'm posting it here.

This was directed at me from a gent over at the
"I'd rather like you to discuss the substance of Christy's assertions. Again, specifically, what assertion does he make, regarding AGW, that you classify as "political pronouncement" and dispute? What scientific assertion does he make that you dispute, and why do you dispute it?"
I gave a detailed reply:

This post is already too long, so my Christy quotes are very short but they all come from the same source for easy reference.  Since "my pronouncements" don't have much weight, I'll defer to the scientists.  Although this was in response to a “sceptical” challenge, I imagine it’ll be ignored, or they’ll find a typo, or the length, to ridicule and call it good.
Therefore, this was actually written for those wanting to learn, who are willing to take the energy to look up the links and actually read and think about what the record has to offer.
Knowledge don’t come easy.

Monday, January 3, 2011

American Physical Society official position on AGW

I still get folks offering me links referencing the "Open Letter to the Council of the American Physical Society" which
"current and former members of the American Physical Society have signed... to the APS Council calling for a reconsideration of its November 2007 Statement on Climate Change.
The Open Letter includes a proposed Alternative Statement which the signatories find a more accurate representation of the current state of the science than the unsupported assertion of the APS: “The evidence is incontrovertible.”

What these folks don't know, or won't share {besides the fact that no climatologist signed their letter} is that the APS overwhelmingly rejected this petition/letter. Here's a copy of their press release:

Saturday, January 1, 2011

Happy New Year 1/1/11

1/1/11. . . . and the beat goes on. . .

It's going to be a challenging year considering the faith-based {two dimensional} folks taking up their seats in our US House of Representatives and the Senate. Folks who still can't seem to fathom that our planet holds all the cards.

That either we figure out how to understand... appreciate this dynamic living planet of ours, along with a realistic appraisal of society's affect upon it... our only Biosphere. Then get real about dealing with our predicament.

Or we are in for ugly days... all self inflicted.