Climate Depot's Marc Morano at CPAC: Climate change is "a political movement. It is not a scientific movement"
February 24, 2010 12:20 pm ET
From the February 18 Accuracy in Media Awards at the 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
I think this puts an end to the debate about "global warming".
The study of Climate Change and Man Made Global Warming is a science. Like all scientific undertakings, discoveries are made, hypothesis are postulated, proven or disproven and then the whole cycle begins again.
This scientific process has been ongoing for for decades and these individual failures do not discount the entire science.
When Palentologists discovered that the "Brontosaurus" didn't really exist, that didn't disprove the existance of science, it just made Flinstones fans upset.
The sheer fact that the right is pinning everything on Al Gore, like he is the basis of all climatology is evidence that the political movement to be a climate change denier is on shaky grounds.
I don't know if Climate Change is real or not, but if the world wide community of scientists says that it is then I will defer to them and not some right-wing repub who says Al Gore has disappeared so the science is wrong.
And every one is laughed out of the room.
Wingnuts seem to be missing a part of the normal human brain, the part that understands how one's credibility is damaged by repeated failures like this.
They seem to think that any debate,minor mistake or correction in decades of science discredits all other science, but they can't seem to grasp that their nearly 100% past failure rate has any effect on their next effort.
You're right about one thing -- people are laughing at a new claim is made by a warmist.
Global warming causes blizzards, the earth is flat, man did not land on the moon, the sun revolves around the earth -- that's how ridiculous global warming claims have become. It's hilarious with each new claim.
Or yeah, CO2 is a pollutant -- what a laugh!
Of course, plant life need CO2 to survive.
Where is Al Gore? Where is he running to? Congress wants you to explain your bogus global warming claims.
I look forward to such legal circuses as the deniers choose to bring forth. Maybe those wonderful folks at The Heritage Foundation can be drug from their overstuffed chairs to provide a leading role in this possible blockbuster of a legal comedy.
Al doesn't produce science or claims, he does show and introduce those who do.
If 97% percent of a field agrees on something, opposition to it needs more than a loud voice or two.
We all know from the CRU-Tape Letters that the "peer review process" consisted of about a dozen completely like-minded "scientists" locking out the viewpoints of anyone who had any real science which was contrary to their religious belief in AGW.
Since the "peer review process" was completely bogus, it is completely obvious that Mr. Morano would have nothing in the so-called peer-reviewed literature. Anything which he attempted to publish would have been kept out by the gate-keepers and protectors of the Faith.
Come up with a better defense O Ye AGW true believers, the public already knows that "peer review" in the "climate sciences" was fraudulent.
There's that misterious "we" population at it again. Any proof to back this slander.
Name some of your suspects.
Proof?
The truth of the matter is CAGW has not been proven and the claims of catastrophe by man-induced CO2 is as ridiculous as the claim that US gov. attacked the twins towers, man did not land on the moon, the sun revolves around the earth, the earth is flat, you're wrong flat earthers, the deniers of Medieval Warm Period -- this only proves AGW is a scam.
Oh, and next time, if you are going to cite something that "puts an end' to ANYTHING, you might a) get a less biased source and b) get a more reliable source. After all, IBD is the source who claimed that if Stephen Hawking had depended upon National Health Services in the UK, he wouldn't be alive today. Sephen Hawking, a English citizen, has received ALL of his care from the British National Health Services.
Try again and with better sources, please.
How do you walk and talk all at once? Do you have to remind yourself how to breathe?
WOULD YOU USE YOUR BRAIN FOR A MORE COMPLEX THOUGHT THAN HOW TO TIE YOUR SHOES FOR JUST ONE SECOND? JUST ONE?!
(I have officially snapped. This country is just too stupid.)
Temple Grandin spoke at the TED conference recently. She said something that I think is very important - the gist of it was that we as a culture are focusing on social skill to the exclusion of other skill sets. She was pointing out that if it weren't for the autism gene set, we would still be sitting in front of our cave entrance huddled around the fire. Innovation comes from those odd ducks that fixate on sitting in the back of the cave banging two rocks together to see what it can do.
Yes, a conservative column filled with misinformation. First, the fact that that study had to be retracted means only that that study was flawed, not that others showing the sea levels are. Sea levels are still rising, believe it or not.
The article states "The e-mails revealed an organized attempt to 'hide the decline' in global temperatures, to manipulate data to fit preconceived conclusions." This is pure nonsense. This was never done. The quote in the column was taken out of context. Recently Penn University looked at this very quote and determined not data was manipulate.
The article states "A key finding of the IPCC, which along with Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, was revealed last month to be utterly bogus. The IPCC claimed glaciers in the Himalayas would likely disappear by 2035." But the statement about the Himalayas was not a key finding. It was part of the gray literature in the IPCC report, making it in at the last second, and in the part that was not peer-reviewed. It amounts to 1 paragraph in a 2000 page document.
The article quotes Burton, a British judge as saying "The first error Gore made, according to Burton, was in his apocalyptic vision of the devastation caused by a rise in sea levels caused by melting polar ice caps. Burton wrote that Gore's predicted 20-foot rise could occur 'only after, and over, millennia' and to suggest otherwise 'is not in line with the scientific consensus.'"
But Burton is a judge, and not a scientist, and he is also dead wrong here. It is true that the gradual rise would take "millennia," but Gore specifically talked about the ice shelf in Greenland sliding off, which, according to science *would* cause the ocean to rise 20 feet.
Now that I've indulged you in your little game of refuting your denialists garbage, do you actually have any real, peer-reviewed science that supports your point?
"Global warming" is a political concoction. It is a pretext to massively increase the size of government. The worldwide Marxist movement invented this as a pretext to attack industry and redistribute wealth.
And you still haven't answered my question from the previous thread; what do countries like Russia, Saudi Arabia and China, have to gain in participating in the "marxist hoax" of your fantasies, keeping in mind that all of their economies are highly dependent on fossil fuels? Furthermore, why did the C.I.A. and numerous other government agencies continue to acknowlegde the reality of AGW while we had a president who was hiring 24 year old young republicans to head NASA's relations committee, and not to mention dedicated his presidency to oil companies?
And please, no passages from "left behind" in your answer.
They want us to harm our economy by putting handicaps like Cap & Tax to harm our economic growth. Cap & Tax screws our economy and that benefits our enemies. They will encourage us to tie one hand behind our back.
These nations would love it if we agreed to hurt our economic growth.
First, that is a gross over-generalization. There are scientists in China who publish peer-reviewed papers supporting AGW. I assume the same is true for Russia. I don't know about Saudi Arabia.
But anyway, that has nothing to do withe the science of AGW being absolutely correct.
Global warming is dead -- bury it, please.
People aren't buying your global warming claims anymore.
Where's Al Gore?
Their governments might have specific disagreements on how to approach the problem of AGW, but they all acknowledge it exists. Which begs the question; what's their motive?
In the case of Russia and China, their environmnet it turning into one big toxic waste dump. Ever see a photo of Beijing? I don't think a single ray of sunlight has made it to the ground with all the smog.
Saudi Arabia obviously has ulterior motives - selling oil.
Why don't you want the US to be the leader in 21st century technology?
Based on the "science" behind AGW, the validatable evidence is just not there. If we wish to lead in technology in the 21st century, we can waste our time designing things that will be of limited or no use whatsoever to the world, or we can come up with new technologies that provide people with what they actually need, want, and desire, which is what drives the global marketplace.
But none of them have published any peer-reviewed papers to back up their ludicrous claims, have they? Kepler, one of the founders of astronomy, though that the spheres sang a heavenly music. We don't accept this statement merely because a scientist (and a good one in this case) said it. We look at the findings backed up by data.
Spencer is especially notorious for making wild claims not backed up by his or others science.
Phil Jones and Michael Mann never lied about their data. As I stated above, Penn University already looked into that allegation, and announced it false, as has just about every other scientist or anyone else doing responsible journalism.
Once again, the hail-mary goes incomplete. The public knows "peer review" means nothing in the "climate sciences" other than, "we kept our studies in and kept all contradictory studies out! Aren't we clever?"
Which can only mean one thing, they're incompetent.
You Denial Cultists seem to be relying more and more on this type of paraphrased gossip, rather than quotes. I think that's a good sign that you're running out of propaganda, and may be closer to dealing with reality. Good for you.
Fact 1: Has the earth warmed since 1850 (the start of the surface temperature record)? I would certainly hope so. 1850 is widely recognized to be towards the end of the "Little Ice Age". It would be very inconvenient if it had not warmed since then. How much has it warmed since then? Somewhere between 0.5 and 1.0C. Not very significant, but significant enough to have gotten us out of the Little Ice Age.
Fact 2: Has it warmed since 1979 (the start of the satellite based temperature record)? Yes, as you will recall, the 1970s and early 1980s were darn cold. Many scientists (some of whom are now the same scientists pushing global warming) were saying that we were on the brink of another ice age in 1979, AND THAT MAN WAS CAUSING IT. (Sound familliar?) All one has to do is dig up the old issues of Time, Life, Newsweek, and the like from that period to see these scientists saying this. Once again, if it was cold enough in the 1970s and early 1980s that scientists feared we were on the brink of a new ice age, it would be very inconvenient for us if we had not warmed since then.
What, like "Hurricane Katrina was caused by AGW", or "the Greenland Ice Sheet is going to slide into the ocean (because of AGW)", "Temperature rise is unprecendented (because of AGW)", "Sea level rise is accelerating (because of AGW)", "The Minneapolis bridge collapse was caused by AGW", "X number of species will die (because of AGW)", "The Himilayas will be glacier free by 2035 (because of AGW)", or "The Arctic ocean will be ice free in X years (because of AGW)". That the kind of gossip you're talking about?
This Chris Horner?
And the Roy Spencer who is a creationist?
So to recap, you have given us someone who wrote a book that has been consistently cited as flawed, an ExxonMobile stoolie and a Creationist. Um . . . yeah. I'm speechless.
Let's see... "Big Coal, Big Oil, etc." grant money provided to climate studies in total = $78 million (with an M). Government grant money provided to "scientists" bent on proving AGW = $22 billion (with a B).
Which scientists would have been more corrupted by gobs and gobs of grant money being thrown at them?
Please try again. The argument that peer review ensured any sort of quality whatsoever in the "climate sciences" is a complete joke.
I think this puts and end to the debate about "global warming".
No, it doesn't. Check with actual scientists here:
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS): http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
National Academy of Sciences (NAS): http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) - http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html
The Royal Society of the UK (RS) - http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135
American Geophysical Union (AGU): http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
American Institute of Physics (AIP): http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR): http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS): http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html
Every major scientific institution dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions. You can claim otherwise, but you can claim that you're married to Princess Leia, too, but that doesn't make it true.
See, it works like this: when you deniers are presented with science and reply with talking points, you don't actually REFUTE the science, you only reveal your own intellectual shortcomings.
Let me adjust data as follows: Take old rural, high-latitude, and high-altitude data and adjust it DOWNWARDS.
Take newer rural, high-latitude, and high-altitude data and DROP THOSE STATIONS FROM THE DATASET.
Take newer urban data and ADJUST IT FURTHER UPWARDS, in spite of the fact that it is already biased high by the urban heat island effect.
Result: Automatic Hockey Stick.
So simlple, so very simple, that only a child can do it!
Creating lists to prove a scientific point is terribly simple-minded. I have a list of 450 peer-reviewed publications refuting AGW. The number of publications, however, is inconsequential. What they say, on the other hand, speaks volumes. And as it takes a single piece of research to disprove a theory, you should spend more time being a skeptic if for no other reason than to keep science honest. Piling onto the CATASTROPHIC AGW bandwagon is an act of faith, not a reasoned conclusion.
The GW Deniers will hang on no matter what happens. That's why I don't get into the back-and-forth of posting links on these threads. There is so much Denier propaganda available, and those who are committed to believing it don't seem to have any judgement for quality over quantity.
That is, for every credible scientific source linked to, they can find a columnist or a bought-off "Dr." somebody to agree with them, and they see this as at least a "tie", or if they're really gullible, proof that GW is a myth.
The scientific method:
1. Scientist observes a pheonomenon which he wishes to describe.
2. Scientist forms an hypothesis to describe said phenomenon.
3. Scientist designs an experiment to generate data and test said hypothesis.
4. Scientist analyzes data generated by said experiment.
5. Scientist evaluates the analyzed data to determine whether the hypothesis must be rejected or if the hypothesis is POTENTIALLY supported. If hypothesis is rejected, scientist returns to #2.
6. If the scientist believes the hypothesis to be potentially supported, scientist provides EVERYTHING (hypothesis, experimental design, raw data, data analysis parameters, analyzed data, and results) to all other interested scientists, so that they can attempt to FALSIFY his work.
7. If other scientists succeed in falsifying the work, original scientist goes back to #3, or in some cases even goes back to #2.
8. If other scientists fail to falsify the work, then the hypothesis is accepted as the BEST CURRENTLY AVAILABLE HYPOTHESIS TO DESCRIBE THE OBSERVED PHENOMENON. This does not mean that the hypothesis becomes the Gospel of Absolute Truth. All it means is that FOR NOW, it is the best one out there to describe this particular phenomenon. It might be tomorrow, or it might be 1000 years from now, but at some point, an even better hypothesis will come out that describes the phenomenon even better and more accurately, at which point it will supplant the current one, but it will STILL not reach the level of the Gospel of Absolute Truth.
So, anyone who claims that "the science is settled" has absolutely no understanding whatsoever of what science actually IS.
"You know, there is a magnificent difference between weather and climate, right? This is why it can be warm in Africa while it is cold here," I said.
"Yeah, a political one," he replies.
There are a host of conservative talking points that slay me, but this-for me-has to be the prime one. How precisely is it a political problem rather than a scientific one, might I ask? Is it used to get votes for the Democrats? Because, when it comes to the voters, they are selfish and moronic, and climate change is one of the last few issues gracing their minds when they enter that ballot box. Is it economical? Is there a widespread conspiracy where Congressman and solar-panel installation businesses are joining forces against the poor, helpless oil companies?
Let me throw some reason out into the world.
Which makes more sense: Democrats inventing climate change so they can put their political careers on the line, appropriate money to sustainable programs that might conflict with their district's interests, spend hours of debating and legislating to impose new restrictions on pollution and carbon emissions, and then, take away our liberties by making us use more cost and energy efficient means all through bribing the scientific community to completely fabricate this data...
OR
The oil, coal, automobile, and manufacturing industries like their profits and the status quo, and will donate whatever money necessary to whomever to see to it that nothing ever changes by spewing lies and manipulation.
Which is more convenient: Americans changing their entire way of thinking including mass consumption without ever paying price, or Americans stating it doesn't exist, so we can all hop back into our Hummers and SUVs without the slightest feeling of remorse?!
In addition to feeling ZERO remorse for driving my Hummer H2, I get an added bonus because I often notice scorns of derision from liberals. They are mad at me for driving a safe car and there isn't a damn thing they can do about it.
BTW, it's not "safer." If you aren't aware, you should be, that higher profile vehicles are prone to rollovers when they are "t-boned" by a lower profile vehicle and in the case of the typical "over-correcting" high speed accident. It's physics.
SUV drivers who are not properly trained to drive them rollover. However, if one knows how to drive one (it is different than a car), there is no problem.
I think anyone who drives a child in a Toyota Prius is irresponsible and loves trees more than their children.
I work car wrecks every day of the week, BJ . . . I know what I"m talking about.
BJ Fan's kid: "My daddy got a hummer!!"
BJ Fan's kid's friend: "Did he get it from your mommy?"
...and, of course, because being overly dependant on the Middle East for our oil supply is a really good thing!!
Washington snow anecdote, totally unrelated (maybe): the day after "snowmageddon," I went out on the interstate and saw only one car that had slid off the highway and was stuck in a snowbank. It was a Hummer. Sorry, I couldn't help but smile.
We have plenty of oil in this country, we just need to drill for it.
(2) ...and keep drilling and drilling because it was last forever, right?
It is common knowledge that there is oil off the coasts of Florida, California, and in ANWR. Why do liberals prefer that we rely on foreign sources rather than drill for our own oil. Even if the supply is finite, why not extract it all?
You say that the theory is discredited from the 1950s, but current evidence shows that this discreditation MAY have been premature.
Then at the same time cite abiotic oil, which has virtually no support, except for a lone paper published by Gold.
Hypotheses are NEVER provable, they are ONLY falsifiable. That is the scientific method.
The fact that you know of no peer-reviewed publications questioning catastrophic AGW simply means that you have chosen not to inform yourself. In reality, I would hazard a guess that there are many, many more than 600 peer-reviewed pro-AGW publications (else the people/orgs funding the research would be very upset). But there is also a large body of peer-reviewed literature questioning it. If you do not even know if it, then you cannot possibly hold an informed position on AGW.
2) Sarcasm does not mask the reality of the silliness to prevent the development of US resources. Oil may be finite, but it is the cheapest source of energy we currently have. As it runs out, the market will replace it with the next cheapest technology. The next least expensive source of reliable energy is nuclear.
As for petroleum, the internal combustion engine is the least efficient design ever, and only the ridiculously high power density of petroleum makes it workable. Considering how much pollution gasoline and diesel are responsible for, and how much money we throw away buying it from other countries, we are far better off without it, even if global warming is not real.
The US Energy Information Administration disagrees with your cost agrument. In their Annual Energy Outlook 2009, they issued the following assessment:
US Avg Levelized Cost (2007 dollars / MWh) for plants entering service in 2016:
Plant Type Total System Levelized Cost
Conventional Coal 94.6
Advanced Coal w/ CCS 122.6
Ccnventional Natural Gas-fired 83.9
Advanced Natural Gas-fired w/ CCS 115.7
Advanced Nuclear 107.3
Wind 141.5
Wind - offshore 229.6
Solar PV 395.7
Solar Thermal 263.7
Geothermal 111.5
Biomass 107.4
Hydro 114.1
As you can see, wind and solar are actually the most expensive when all costs are considered. In addition, these numbers do NOT include the cost of back-up power required by wind and solar. When these are added in, the cost of wind and solar are truly uncompetitive.
As far as waste is concerned, the lifespan of a utility scale wind turbine is about 15 years. That of a PV solar panel is 20 - 25 years. A comprehensive study of the decomissioning costs and concerns of a utility scale turbine has not been performed. As far as PV solar goes, the chemical waste from their production is very toxic. In the US, these chemicals are controlled in an environmentally responsible manner. This is not true elsewhere in the world. I have not seen a study of how spent solar panels are handled.
As far as subsidizing an industry goes, the US government subsidy to wind generation now costs us $23.34 / MWh (vs natural gas at 25 cents; coal at 44 cents; hydro at 67 cents; and nuclear at $1.59).
Honestly, as an electrical engineer, I wish wind and solar were able to compete. Someday, when energy storage is more advanced, perhaps they can. My arguement applies only to the foreseeable future. If/when technology changes, so will my opinion.
We get 837,000 barrels/day from Saudia Arabia
So what you are talking about is increasing our production by 16.7% from drilling off of Florida, California, and ANWR?
Do you real feel comfortable saying that we could stop importing from Saudia Arabia by drilling off of Florida?
Think before you speak... try saying "Do I really know what I'm talking about"
And for your information, a lot of the domestic drilling was halted not because of "tree huggers", but because of the cost to extract the oil wasn't profitable because all crude oil is not the same and the effort to find it cost several businessmen millions of dollars (Ask GWB about that). Look up how much it costs to extract oil from shale.
OPEC is going to keep the cost of oil down for as long as they can to make it unprofitable for us to drill or find alternative sources of energy. Drilling is short term and doesn't fix our problem, alternative sources is the right answer and could eventually make Saudia Arabia irrelevant.
Forced use of an energy source which yields less energy per dollar spent is an automatic deficit.
I am by no means against other forms of energy, especially if they are cleaner than what we currently use. It is stupid to pollute one's own nest, certainly. However, CO2 is not a pollutant, it is plant food. Certainly there are OTHER emmissions from burning oil (such as benzene) which are NOT desireable, and even though we have made great progress in pollution controlls which have greatly mitigated these types of emissions, it is still desireable to have cleaner AND MORE EFFICIENT sources of energy.
However, having cleaner and MARKEDLY LESS EFFICIENT sources of energy is NOT going to solve the problem. You cannot discount all of the pollution produced in the production of solar panels, wind turbines, ethanol production, and the like. All of these sources of pollution must be taken into account.
Also, what about the vast completely abandoned wind-farms in California, Hawaii, and other places which have decrepit equipment blighting the landscape but producing no energy whatsoever? What is to be done to remediate those sites?
That's almost as idiotic as saying we wouldn't be dependent on oil if the nutjobs hadn't ridiculed President Carter for advocating turning down thermostats and driving economical autos.
I see a lot of big SUVs in "single car accidents" here in southern California, where they're still very popular. I think it's because they're so popular with bad drivers who are a little scared behind the wheel.
Good drivers address safety by paying attention and relying on their driving skills to avoid problems. Nervous drivers go for a false sense of safety by assuming they're going to fail, and buying a vehicle that they imagine will crush the other persons children while sparing their own.
If I had to name the biggest positive for SUVs (aside from the rare person who uses it for off-road driving, as opposed to the majority who have no idea why they need one), I'd say they serve as a warning, like those orange triangles on the back of slow-moving vehicles; when I see a larger suv pulling up next to me, I interpret it as "Warning: Crappy Driver Approaching", and I'm usually proved right.
I'm in Ohio. It used to snow here a lot. Now it snows here a few times a winter. I love going out and looking to see who thinks driving a big honking 4 wheel drive will keep them from sliding. I can tell which ones they are because they are standing next to their back bumpers calling tow trucks to drag them out of the ditches.
Let me start with SIZE DOESN'T MATTER when it comes to safety!
Crash Testing: MINI Cooper vs Ford F150
Ooops! Which would you rather have your children ride in?
Big and Bad - How the S.U.V. ran over automotive safety.
So what is the truth? If you bought the Hummer for safety, then you didn't do your homework at all. Very irresposible for someone that cares so much about the safety of their children.
I suspect the truth is that you don't own a Hummer at all and are just trying to make a personal appeal in the argument OR that you bought the H2 as a status symbol and not for the safety of your beloved angels. I know you didn't get it for fuel efficiency or to lower your carbon footprint.
Now to finish your argument off once and for all...
Hummer H2 safety concerns. (Helium)
Move along, troll.
The civilian models are just sucker-bait for short guys .
One says Palin 2012
The other says Global Warming Denier
Not much doubt about my political affiliation
I said: All cars nowadays are equipped with big signs indicating one's political affliation.
You reply that your car has bumper stickers. No, you really did. As if I questioned how people could know your affiliations. What kind of a fool totally misses an obvious point?
You continue to showcase a serious lack of comprehension. Get help.
I guess those were cheaper than getting a vanity plate that says "SUCKER", and sends the same message. I'll bet salesman get very excited when they see you pull up to their business.
This scenario sounds entirely plausible to me. Democrats are Marxists at heart and using this scam of "global warming" they have a pretext to massively increase the size and scope of government thereby empowering themselves.
I am more inclined to believe in teh tooth fairy than in "global warming". GIve it up already. It has been debunked - it is a hoax.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100025934/climategate-the-official-cover-up-continues/
Fail. Again.
Good grief! AGW has been supported for decades by multiple disciplines in the sciences, long before it became a political issue. Democrats didn't make it up.
And please show me where this decades of sound science has been debunked, besides by the hyperventilateing blogosphere.
Well, let's see, the Mann hockey stick was proven to be false, not only by McIntyre but by numerous other agencies showing that the Medieval Warm Period was real and as warm or warmer than today. Then there's Briffa's Yamal curtailed dataset which included only those tree rings which supported warming. When the entire dataset was used, the warming disappeared. Let's not forget the missing tropospheric heating predicted by the IPCC models, the slowdown of sea level rise, the lack of correlation, let alone a causation, between increased CO2 and global hurricanes, and the recent analysis showing that the US land temperature dataset showed very little rural warming as opposed to large urban increases. Shall I go on? OK. The IPCC report was found to violate 72 principles of forecasting (i.e. GSMs cannot be trusted). Phil Jones (you know Phil, Director of CRU, Univ. of East Anglia) stated that our recent warming event (1970 - 2009) was NOT statistically different from our last warming event (1910 - 1940) when CO2 was static. He also stated that the temperature trend from 2002 - 2009 was DECREASING (in the face of rising atmospheric CO2). Susan Solomon (NCAR, AGW proponent) et al recently published a paper stating that global temps may not be as sensitive to CO2 as previously thought. The WMO just published an article stating that US hurricane activity showed no long-term increase, nor have hurricanes exhibited a detectable increase in rainfall. The decrease in Artic sea ice was shown to be wind driven, not temperature driven (not to mention Arctic sea ice has increased the past 2 winters). And Antarctic sea ice has hit an all-time record high!
So, tell me guys, just what data do you have LEFT showing that mankind's burning of fossil fuel is causing and will cause catastrophic global warming?
Nothing further.
You must be a Pratchett fan.
This scenario sounds entirely plausible to me. Democrats are Marxists at heart and using this scam of "global warming" they have a pretext to massively increase the size and scope of government thereby empowering themselves.
I am more inclined to believe in teh tooth fairy than in "global warming". GIve it up already. It has been debunked - it is a hoax.
Obviously you would disagree with that. However, which companies hold the bulk of patents on alternative energy technology and stand to profit the most from the implementation of such technology? BP, Shell, etc.
These large multi-national corporations also stand to profit the most from manipulating the carbon credit markets world-wide, because they have the financial means to do so.
BRAIN!
MORANO
Does CPAC have a mascot, like the Olympics does ? Cuz "Morano" would be a really cute name. It could be an ostrich, or a slug, or just a Moran-American human called Morano the Moran.
Why yes, yes it is. You have just taken your first baby step on the path to understanding science.
your next steps should be:
1. Determine what factors caused the end of the ice age.
2. Check to see if those factors apply today.
3. Look around for other factors that may be a part of the cause.
As a side study, you could investigate the rate of change over time coming out of the ice age as compared to the last few decades or so.
I'm sure given enough time and patience you too can learn how science works.
And more than anything else, CPAC is like a bowel movement - you get the same thing from both.
Are we now disputing scientific facts every time it's more politically expedient to do so, just because some moron comes out with something stupid to say about it?
Hey, you know Einstein's Theory of Relativity is flawed, so let's toss it. So are Newton's law's, so we'll get rid of those. Come to think of it, I think all science can be disputed. How about we get rid of all science everywhere and let the religious idiots take over science like they did in the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem Witch Hunts. It'll be like the good ol' days. Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh will feel so nostalgic.
It appears that much of the science has made basic assumptions that the temperature data set is adequate, but is it? Dr. Phil Jones admits that his data set is lacking, and that he is not well organized. People need to invest time and energy in validating the base data sets.
We now know that there has been 'not statistically significant warming' in the last 15 years. I understand that is somewhat open to interpretation (1.2 deg per century warming), but should we turn the world upside down to reduce the warming from 1.2 deg/century to 0.8 deg per century? Couldn't we invest that multi trillion dollars into something a little more useful, like better Super Bowl adds?
"We now know that there has been 'not statistically significant warming' in the last 15 years. "
Really? And your source for this is?
Why, Phil Jones himself. Don't you read?
The raw weather data exists, have fun.
Who is "we"
Green industries are producing jobs at a fine rate. How many new jobs in the hydrocarbon industry in the last year.
The major investments in the oil industries in the last few years has been buying back their own stock. This is how you prepare for the future? Reduce the number of shareholders?
Re: scientists, you are in never-never land!
- Proven that C0.2 is a GHG (Physics)
- Proven that the earth has warmed since 1870 or so.
- Proven....... ummmmmm nothing else
There is nothing else that has been proven, and that is a fact. There are hypothesis, ideas, but nothing is proven. In fact you really can't prove anything beyond that with what little we do know. This is not like medicine where you can test and retest. We are talking about global climate, which is kind of hard to test.
Funny you should bring up the Inquisition. In no other field of science are skeptics treated to the level of hubris, hatred, reprisal, and punishment compared to climate science. THIS should have been your first indication that the scientific method was NOT operating correctly.
Your own leaders are surrendering and/or going into hiding, and yet you continue to stand by them and their nonsense.
The Global Warming activist has now officially joined the ranks of the televangelist, the ghost hunter and the UFO abductee.
As a global warming activist, who are my leaders?
http://www.heartland.org/events/newyork09/pdfs/lindzen.pdf
Thomas R. Knutson , John L. McBride , Johnny Chan , Kerry Emanuel , Greg Holland , Chris Landsea , Isaac Held , James P. Kossin , A. K. Srivastava & Masato Sugi
Hurricane counts (with no adjustments for possible missing cases) show a significant increase from the late 1800s to present, but do not have a significant trend from the 1850s or 1860s to present. Other studies infer a substantial low-bias in early Atlantic tropical cyclone intensities (1851–1920), which, if corrected, would further reduce or possibly eliminate long-term increasing trends in basin-wide hurricane counts. Landfalling tropical storm and hurricane activity in the US shows no long-term increase.
In terms of global tropical cyclone frequency, it was concluded that there was no significant change in global tropical storm or hurricane numbers from 1970 to 2004, nor any significant change in hurricane numbers for any individual basin over that period, except for the Atlantic (discussed above). Landfall in various regions of East Asia during the past 60 years, and those in the Philippines during the past century, also do not show significant trends.
See http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/pdf/ngeo779.pdf
"failure of indivd scientists does not discount the entire science". the scientists that have been caught suppressing info, lying about trends etc etc are the main guys behind the ipcc reports. their input has been vital.
"hide the decline" was not out of context. data show a decrease in temps from 1960. they needed to hide this decline. nothjing out of context.period.
penn st. looking into m. mann. really? i am sure they had no vested interest in finding that he did nothing wrong. give me a break!
green jobs are a fallacy. show me how it works. why hasn't it worked already?
your leaders: m. mann, maurice strong, s. schneider, jim hansen, al gore, phil jones. follow them from when s. schneider first spoke of big bad man causing the next ice age. follow maurice strong from the first earth summit. read what he was trying to accomplish. try to get thru www.green-agenda.com