IBD misrepresented Gore on hurricane frequency
An Investor's Business Daily editorial falsely claimed that Al Gore "still claims" hurricanes "are increasing in frequency and intensity" as a result of global warming and that "[w]hat has happened in the past three years is that such claims have been thoroughly debunked as the earth has cooled, possibly for decades hence." In fact, Gore has said that there is no consensus that warming is causing more frequent hurricanes, and the author of the study IBD claims has "debunked" predictions about the effect of warming on tropical cyclone (TC) intensity has stated that his findings "do not contradict the recent climate change/TC linkage literature."
IBD asserted Gore "still claims" hurricanes "are increasing in frequency"
From the November 3 IBD editorial:
The book's cover depicts one of the hurricanes Gore still claims are increasing in frequency and intensity. What has happened in the past three years is that such claims have been thoroughly debunked as the earth has cooled, possibly for decades hence.
For example, a recent study by researchers at Florida State University determined that the 2007 and 2008 hurricane seasons had the least tropical activity in the Northern Hemisphere in 30 years.
Ryan Maue, co-author of the report released in November 2008 on "Global Tropical Cyclone Activity," used a measurement called accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) that combines a storm's duration and its wind speed in six-hour intervals. The years 2007 and 2008 had among the lowest ACE measurements since reliable global satellite data were first available three decades ago.
In fact, Gore has said there is "no consensus" linking global warming to hurricane frequency
Gore: "There is no consensus linking the frequency of hurricanes to global warming." As noted by science reporter Chris Mooney, Gore stated during a March 21, 2007, congressional hearing on climate change, "There is no consensus linking the frequency of hurricanes to global warming and I've never said there is -- it's the intensity of hurricanes. It's also true, the scientists say, you can't take an individual storm and say, 'This is caused by global warming.' But the odds of stronger storms are going up."
An Inconvenient Truth: "There is less agreement among scientists" about the impact of climate change on the "number of hurricanes." Gore noted in his 2006 book An Inconvenient Truth that "[a] growing number of new scientific studies are confirming that warmer water in the top layer of the ocean can drive more convection energy to fuel more powerful hurricanes." He added, "There is less agreement among scientists about the relationship between the total number of hurricanes each year and global warming -- because a multi-decade natural pattern has a powerful influence on hurricane frequency." Gore further stated that "some scientists" have said that warming could lead "to an increased frequency of hurricanes."
IBD's claim that study "debunked" climate change/hurricane intensity link undermined by study's author
Maue: Recent decrease in hurricane energy "does not contradict the recent climate change / TC linkage literature." Ryan Maue, the Florida State University Meteorology researcher cited by IBD, stated on his website that "[u]nder global warming scenarios, hurricane intensity is expected to increase (on the order of a few percent), but MANY questions remain as to how much, where, and when. This science is very far from settled." Maue added, "Many papers have suggested that these changes are already occurring especially in the strongest of hurricanes due to warming sea-surface temperatures, but the methodology and data issues with each of these papers perhaps overshadows the conclusions. The notion that the overall global hurricane energy or ACE has collapsed does not contradict the recent climate change / TC linkage literature but provides an additional, perhaps less publicized piece of the puzzle."
Maue reportedly "believes there's simply not enough reliable data" to determine whether climate change will increase hurricane intensity. The Houston Chronicle reported on October 31 that Maue "believes there's simply not enough reliable data to make a call either way" on the question of whether climate change will bring more intense storms.
IPCC stated that it is likely hurricanes will "become more intense." The International Panel on Climate Change stated in its Summary for Policymakers of the Fourth Assessment Report, "Based on a range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical sea surface temperatures."
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/GLOBAL_TC_24MONTH_FREQUENCY.jpg
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/global_running_ace.jpg&imgrefurl=http://coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/&usg=__EOOia0CKFxvizHNnFrWBnE3nP34=&h=556&w=1024&sz=282&hl=en&start=3&um=1&tbnid=jh4ReNpstSHxKM:&tbnh=81&tbnw=150&prev=/images?q=global+tropical+hurricane+intensity+fsu&hl=en&sa=G&um=1
US tornado activity has been in decline for many years also.
http://www.climate-movie.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/tornadotrend.jpg
The facts, just the facts.
http://coaps.fsu.edu/climate_center/climatechange.shtml
gpp just can't cherry-pick very well. He/she needs to go back to denier training to learn how to cherry-pick better. What a dufus.
Just to be accurate, here's the text that goes with the chart.
"here is a general trend of increasing activity over the whole period, but whether that is real or just an artifact of poor detection of storms before aircraft reconnaissance or satellites is a subject of intense debate."
the second most confirmed number of tornadoes on record, with 2004 the most.
that would not seem to be a decline.
Your text to link here...
gpp is known for not being able to read a chart correctly. Because he/she is so enamored with their own pre-conceived notions, he/she misses the obvious on the charts.
Anyway, the chart that gpp claims proves a decline in tornadic activity is only for F3-F5 tornadoes. Unfortunately for gpp, most SANE meteorologists will include F0 through F5 tornadoes in the count - as shown in your link.
Thanks for the heads-up on that Florida State University link. I'll add it to my list of pro-AGW sites! Keep those posts coming!
This is what they say about AGW:
"Perhaps the most significant human influence today is the increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxides (NOx), which contribute to a general warming of our planet"
http://coaps.fsu.edu/climate_center/climatechange.shtml
It has been thought that an increase in carbon dioxide will lead to global warming. While carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing over the past 100 years, there is no evidence that it is causing an increase in global temperatures.
In 1997, NASA reported global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites revealed no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. In fact, the trend appeared to be a decrease in actual temperature.
The largest differences in the satellite temperature data were not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño.
The behavior of the atmosphere is extremely complex. Therefore, discovering the validity of global warming is complex as well. How much effect will the increase in carbon dioxide will have is unclear or even if we recognize the effects of any increase.
Let me quote you in advance: "Nothing to see here."
Perfect example of how deniers aren't just ignorant. They are liars.
Here's the full url of the link galileonardo posted. Look closely at how it runs to sites together. Slick. Read his url, then go to the url below this one. See the difference?
http://web.archive.org/web/20060129154229/http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/jetstream/atmos/ll_gas.htm
Notice how the "discussion" section is re-written to twist it to the utter nonsense of deniers. There's also an extra callout.
Now here's the correct page.
//www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/jetstream/atmos/ll_gas.htm
Are deniers that pathetic that they have to just lie about their position?
You gotta do better than that.
Here's the full story from Anthony Watts, you know, the guy you routinely disparage despite his having won the "Best Science Blog" weblog award for 2008.
The link I provided was the same he gave for the archived page NOAA was attempting to hide. It was derived from this nifty little thing called the Wayback Machine, the pre-eminent internet archive. Why don't you go there yourself and paste in YOUR exact link and let me know what you find in the Jan 3rd, 2008 archived page.
Hmm. What do you know. It is the identical experiment I had quoted from in my initial post. In the "new-and-improved" version of the NOAA page you'll note that they decided to completely eliminate those paragraphs from the discussion and replace them with hastily-put-together and irrelevant "Fast Facts" (after having the page "not found" for a few days - yet another "nothing to see here" moment).
So, since NOAA tried re-writing history much to the glee of you AGW flat-earthers, I will repeat what the page initially said in the discussion section:
It has been thought that an increase in carbon dioxide will lead to global warming. While carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing over the past 100 years, there is no evidence that it is causing an increase in global temperatures.
In 1997, NASA reported global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites revealed no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. In fact, the trend appeared to be a decrease in actual temperature.
The largest differences in the satellite temperature data were not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño.
The behavior of the atmosphere is extremely complex. Therefore, discovering the validity of global warming is complex as well. How much effect will the increase in carbon dioxide will have is unclear or even if we recognize the effects of any increase.
Perfect example of how the AGW cultists aren't just ignorant, they are liars. Notice how the "discussion" section is re-written to twist it to the utter nonsense of the AGW propagandists? Are believers that pathetic that they have to just lie about their position? You gotta do better than that.
Thanks though for making my weekend. I'll check in some time to see if you have retracted your slanderous claims.
I will let you know what they say. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But that doesn't change the fact that the latest post is not in-line with your assertions.
If you are as open minded to the truth as you claim, you should have at least also posted the update.
Leaving updated page out, looks a lot like cherry-picking - which you claim you don't do.
As it is, NOAA has not yet updated the "discussion" section of the experiment. All they have done is delete the offending paragraphs and replace them with the filler "Fast Facts" feature. I am curious as to what will ultimately replace that passage, but rest assured it will toe the AGW line.
Apologies on the "liar" part. But, no conspiracies here. Here's the response I got from NOAA. Now you may want to find all the other sites that deleted the evidence, because there's going to be a lot of them.
--------------------
It was recently brought to our attention that we had some outdated, non-attributed and possibly speculative information related to climate change on our educational/outreach web page - JetStream. E-mails from the public made us aware of this and we responded by reviewing the page to ensure the information is factual and reflects the section's intent of providing an educational science experiment - and this page has been reposted. Unfortunately we are unable to link the reposted page directly through the main JetStream page today. The individuals who has the files to make the proper links will be back in the office and we'll have the full links back Tuesday. The reposted page is located at its old link and can be found at http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/jetstream/atmos/ll_gas.htm
Ron Jones
Web Manager / Internet Projects
NOAA's National Weather Service
Office of the Chief Information Officer
Silver Spring, MD
As I said above, I am curious to see what the new page will say though judging by his response, I will not be surprised when it inevitably falls in line with the AGW scripture.
My guess is the new discussion section will include "some outdated, non-attributed and possibly speculative information related to climate change." Poking aside, thank you again for your update.
Will anyone make a bet that the Arctic sea ice will completely melt within in five years. Well, in mid September the ice was 24% larger than just two years prior. The trend doesnt look very good for the melting theory.......
Yearly fluctuations are MEANINGLESS.
gpp is using a twisted argument to imply that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is not a fact.
The proof of AGW lies in the wealth of data from sound sources, not gpp, that shows continued warming, and that it is connected to human-induced CO2 emissions. (links below)
All this noise about hurricane activity is a secondary effect of climate change that is more difficult to predict. As MMFA shows in their links above, the likelihood of more intense hurricanes is higher with the warming of the earth, but no guarantees from year to year.
Fluctuations in the number of hurricanes, or even intense hurricanes, does not change the facts about AGW. That's been proven by empirical data.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
I think you'll find very few takers, because that's not reflective of the overall rate of reduction (note 1979-2000 average).
And then what happened?...
Warm winds slow autumn ice growth: Sea ice extent grew throughout October, as the temperature dropped and darkness returned to the Arctic. However, a period of relatively slow ice growth early in the month kept the average ice extent low--October 2009 had the second-lowest ice extent for the month over the 1979 to 2009 period.
Here are some things that Gorey is devoted to, aside from unbridled AGW alarmism: the WTI hazardous waste incinerator, Occidental Petroleum, zinc mining/Caney Fork River pollution, methane-spewing black angus, Elk Hills Petroleum Reserve, and the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.
Look them up adding "Gore" to your search and then tell me who is dense. If anyone is playing the role of Inquisitor in this debate, it is people like you who swallow the scripture of Gore/Hansen/Mann without questioning its validity.
Trying to back out of a tight spot, I suppose.
I guess this is why the UK courts called his movie "propoganda" and "politically motivated".
Your text to link here...
Figure 5 on the link below shows an upward trend. There will be year-year fluctuations.
Text that goes with the chart:
"There is a general trend of increasing activity over the whole period, but whether that is real or just an artifact of poor detection of storms before aircraft reconnaissance or satellites is a subject of intense debate."
http://coaps.fsu.edu/climate_center/climatechange.shtml
The 2006 August Net Tropical Cyclone activity prediction was 140% of average season; actual was 85% (only off by a minor 55% and their forecast released in April was 195%, off merely 110% from the actuals).
The 2007 August Net Tropical Cyclone activity prediction was 160% of average season; actual was 99% (only off by 61% and again, their forecast released in April was 185%, just wrong by 86%).
The 2008 August Net Tropical Cyclone activity prediction was 190% of average season; actual was 162% (finally closer to reality but still off by 28%, and the irony here is if they stuck with their April forecast of 160% they would have been pretty much right on).
They were only off by an average of 48% over the last three years. Their predictions for 2009 aren't looking so swell either. With near real time predictions failing so miserably, how reliable do you think the "consensus" computer models that project years and decades and sometimes centuries into the future are? Not so much as we continue to learn.
And no, I am not confusing weather with long term climate projections. This is only an issue because Al and others tried their best to link the intense 2005 hurricane season to global warming. Don't let the facts get in the way of some good hype, right? That is just one of the many exaggerations you have bought into if you believe the AGW models.
But how AGW will affect the weather, ice melts, etc. are still under investigation.
Deniers keep getting the 2 mixed up, so they think just because hurricane numbers or strength is higher or lower this year or next year, it means AGW is not a fact.
Year-year fluctuations will occur. But over time, things will get worse.
The nonsensus consensus is greatly exaggerated (I should have known better, but I thought I had coined a new phrase there only to find that I am about 20 years too late). That is not how science should be and is certainly not conducive to further understanding of the very complex systems driving climate. I hope the darkness of this era in climate science is soon illuminated.
All I was trying to say was that even short-term, near real-time projections have major shortcomings, and these shortcomings are a microcosm of the AGW climate model macrocosm (made worse when the IPCC uses inherently flawed science such as Mann's hockey stick and its spawn as the impetus for their recommendations).
The IPCC, Mann, Briffa et al have been trying to shore up the holes in the AGW dike, but there is only so much they can do. It's going to burst, hopefully sooner rather than later.
Then perhaps we will reach the point Hans von Storch prematurely thought we had already reached when he said, "Hopefully, sociology of science will later study this unfortunate period of climate science, but we may conclude now that science itself has indeed corrected claims of premature knowledge."
Only then, when denier/flat-earther barbs have less of a sting, will truly unhindered climate science take place. Until then, it will be mired in the political AGW circus.
There is nothing wrong with that admission as the hope is that we will gain better understanding with continued investigation, but unfortunately policy makers put too much stock in the current lightweight/cherry-picked predictions and models to the detriment of us all.
I hope you drown yourself when the sea level increases.
Is that not wishing for my death? So I reiterate. Delly the Intolerant has been documented wishing for the death of deniers. She is shameful.
For example, I've heard people talk about 100-year earthquake cycles. That's plain silly. One hundred years is a moment in geologic time.
Second, the number of severe hurricanes is, thankfully, generally less than a dozen per year in our (North America and the Caribbean) part of the world. Plus or minus one or two changes the percentage considerably, but as a number doesn't seem like much.
The problem, of course, is that by the time the data are conclusive it will probably be too late to change the trends. So let's start now. What's the downside? We import less foreign oil, we clean up our environment, we save money - oh, and we just might save the earth...
"Look, here's a mountain of evidence showing that over the last two hundred years, the Earth has been in an ever-accelerating warming trend which threatens the balance of life on Earth."
Global Warming Denier: "Oh yeah? Well, yesterday, it SNOWED! So much for your 'theory!'"
"Oh, and btw- Al Gore is FAT! Hahaha!"
The first "chip" link used by galileonardo is bogus. Here's the url of that link:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060129154229/http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/jetstream/atmos/ll_gas.htm
Now compare it to the site's original link:
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/jetstream/atmos/ll_gas.htm
See the difference? Look at the difference between the pages.
Deniers think they're so smart. Not the least. They're just delusional.
Here's the full story from Anthony Watts, you know, the guy you routinely disparage despite his having won the "Best Science Blog" weblog award for 2008.
The link I provided was the same he gave for the archived page NOAA was attempting to hide. It was derived from this nifty little thing called the Wayback Machine, the pre-eminent internet archive. Why don't you go there yourself and paste in YOUR exact link and let me know what you find in the Jan 3rd, 2008 archived page.
Hmm. What do you know. It is the identical experiment I had quoted from in my initial post. In the "new-and-improved" version of the NOAA page you'll note that they decided to completely eliminate those paragraphs from the discussion and replaced them with hastily-put-together and irrelevant "Fast Facts" (after having the page "not found" for a few days - yet another "nothing to see here" moment).
As I said, let me know when you're done digging.
You'd think if NOAA was trying to hide something, they sure didn't do a good job. And I thought you didn't buy in to the whole conspiracy angle.
Anyway, I contacted their site owner about the link. I should be hearing back from them. But, they may also send the black helicopters after me.
At any rate the NOAA "conspirators" now state that humans cause global warming. The "conspiracy" continues.
The IPCC/UN/Copenhagen Treaty all transparently flaunt their redistributionist aims. American politicians now are conceding the legally-binding treaty isn't happening this go-round, and some are saying such a commitment will (predictably) be delayed beyond next year's midterm elections.
Why do you think that is the case? Pretty simple really. They know they would be thrown out in 2010 if they supported the signing of that measure in any of its current forms. The more people learn about cap and trade and the Copenhagen Treaty, the more they shun it.
Why again? Because of the aforementioned transparent redistributionist aims of those measures. All of this is less about scientific progress than it is about social progress. It will ultimately hurt the noble environmental causes that could really make a difference in the world.
The first "chip" link used by galileonardo is bogus. Here's the url of that link:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060129154229/http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/jetstream/atmos/ll_gas.htm
Now compare it to the site's original link:
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/jetstream/atmos/ll_gas.htm
See the difference? Look at the difference between the pages.
"clueless right wing morons" is absolutely correct.
So, where does that leave us? What say you to what was on NOAA's page until they were "outed" for their denialist claims and went into scramble-cover-up mode? Hmm? Now will I get you to say "nothing to see here" as I had predicted? Will you retract your claims of "bogus" and "liar" or will you just go silent and curl up in the fetal position in a warm tub full of water? I'll drop in later to see where you take this from here.
Another downside is the diversion of large amounts of resources from real environmental issues like habitat destruction and species eradication. Further, by proposing a cap and trade system that will increase the costs of energy and every last product and service we consume, the disdain for environmental causes will increase, further hampering green efforts.
There's a picture of Al right next to the definition.
Here's the story from over a decade ago. And here's a nice summation of some of his crimes against the environment in the 2000 Ralph Nader letter.
I'm guessing Gore now regrets having invented the internet.
http://www.climate-movie.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/tornadotrend.jpg
Your text to link here...
This is contrary to the AGW theory that says there will be more violent storms.
Global hurricane storm intensity is also at 50 year lows.
This is all about the scientific method, theories must be proven through observation.
You do know that the chairman of the IPCC, Rajendran Pachauri recieved his degree in railway engineering from the Indian Railways Institute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Railways_Institute_of_Mechanical_and_Electrical_Engineering
Your text to link here...
Now I know why I sometimes get the feeling that we are being "railroaded"
http://www.climate-movie.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/tornadotrend.jpg
Your text to link here...
This is contrary to the AGW theory that says there will be more violent storms.
Global hurricane storm intensity is also at 50 year lows.
This is all about the scientific method, theories must be proven through observation.
You do know that the chairman of the IPCC, Rajendran Pachauri recieved his degree in railway engineering from the Indian Railways Institute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Railways_Institute_of_Mechanical_and_Electrical_Engineering
Your text to link here...
Now I know why I sometimes get the feeling that we are being "railroaded"
There are fewer tornadoes
Atmospheric temperatures in June were cooler than 1979
The oceans are cooling slightly
Sea level has not increased in four years
Antarctica had the most ice ever recorded in 2008
Many record low temperature records are being broken throughout the planet.
Atmospheric CO2 is increasing
There is a major contradiction here.
I'm amazed that ignorant people think they can pass themselves off as knowledgeable in something they know absolutely nothing about. I'm even more amazed that these same people refuse to educate themselves to know better. Then, they waste everyone's time with their amazing brain powers. They just look silly.
Your statement: "This is all about the scientific method, theories must be proven through observation", defines "motivated reasoning", not the scientific method.
This proves to everyone that you lack the grasp of how to even objectively look at AGW. You can't get beyond your confusion about the meaning of "theory" and "hypothesis".
On the other hand, motivated reasoning starts with a conclusion, then looks for evidence to support it. This is what deniers typically do. Your are stuck on an endless loop of misinformation.
"When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena." [source link below]
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION02121000000000000000
The scientific theory states that any theory is just that until
proven correct through observation. This is just common sense.
The AGW theory is that there is man made global warming due to rising atmospheric CO2 levels.
Observation does not support the theory.
I will repeat once more. CO2 can not, by itself, cause temperatures to rise more than 1.5C no matter how much there is. It can double or triple, and the end result is the same.
More CO2 does cause a small amount of warming. The AGW theory says this warming will cause more humidity which in turn is supposed to cause positive feedbacks such as more Cirrus clouds to form. Cirrus clouds do trap heat. If the AGW theory was correct, the Cirrus clouds would trap heat, the additional heat would cause still more warming, more Cirrus clouds would form, trapping even more heat, and a chain reaction would occure.
Of course, this can not happen, since in past ages of earths history both CO2 and temperature have been much higher than today, and no chain reaction ever occured.
So what does the observation show? When temperatures warm, fewer Cirrus clouds form and more low level clouds form. Low level clouds block sunlight from reaching the earth, this causes cooling. These clouds also cause rain, which also cool. You will note that when it rains, temperatures do cool. So clouds are not a positive feedback, they are a negative feedback.
Absent positive feedbacks, and there is no evidence they exist, rising levels of CO2 will not cause dangerous global warming, that is besides a degree or degree and a half at most!
This basically solves the issue. Most people, including yourself, seem to know little about the feedbacks. You never mention them. They are the basic element of the AGW theory.
So the scientific method "proves" that the AGW theory is false.
End of story.
p.s. SLRTX, I am not trying to convince you to change your mind, but perhaps others on this forum want to learn something, and it is for them that I make these posts. I do find it quite humorous how you throw mud and have your temper tantrums though.
These dialogues also assist me in learning about the thought process of those who are so attached to the theory of AGW that they can not bring themselves to consider any other possibilities and are desperate to silence any criticism of it.
""""Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]""""
Basically any theory must be checked for accuracy.
When doing this with the IPCC climate models, they do not accurately predict what the climate is doing. They also do not work backwards.
The climate models can not be accurate since we do not fully understand all the natural forces that impact climate. Until we fully understand these forces, an accurate model can not be created.
This is just common sense.
Since Natural forces are still at work, or perhaps SLRTX thinks that natural forces just stopped working and man made ones fully took over, important information is missing from these models.
Of course, any theory must be checked for accuracy.
Climatologists are always proposing new theories, based on new evidence. If the claim holds water, then progress is made and the current theories are adjusted to explain the new data.
Here's an example of how Josh Willis was prepared to publish something completely contrary to what other scientists claim, but re-checked & found he made a mistake. But, before he found the mistake, he was INVITED TO PRESENT HIS FINDINGS at a conference.
If the scientists were all aligned to push AGW as some political conspiracy, then they certainly would not have invited Willis to present his contradictory results.
Real scientists don't care about contradiction, as long as the data supports it, and can be independently verified.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page1.php
"Since Natural forces are still at work, or perhaps SLRTX thinks that natural forces just stopped working and man made ones fully took over, important information is missing from these models."
No. I just don't throw out all that data that shows the man made ones (human activity linked to warming).
But rejection of obvious facts does seem to be a problem for you.
Larry did you in really good about a month ago, along with many others. He even had more beat-downs at the ready, but the thread closed before he got back. Scroll down about two-thirds of the page. http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2009_10_01_archive.html
He made you look like the black knight in Monty Python who denies he's mortally wounded and unfit to battle on.
Now that that is out of the way, I just read through that thread again and I hope folks follow your link and do the same. As is typical of you, you claim that I have been debunked countless times and suffered "beat-downs," etc. So I invite people to go read that thread and other threads and judge for themselves rather than take the word of an AGW cultist such as yourself.
And rather than skip down "two-thirds of the page" (nice try at yet again directing people to cherry-pick), hopefully people will read the whole thing. I notice you make no mention of the many "beat-downs" you and others suffered at my fingertips and instead try to deflect to Larry because he at least sounds mostly sane. Rather than try to ride his coattails, perhaps you can drop your flimsy crutches and try to stand on your own. I know that's hard to do for someone with such weak arguments but maybe you can give it a shot.
As for your point about Larry, it's funny how quickly things change in just one month and I wish he would drop in again, especially because of what is currently going on with the science and because the negotiating text of the Copenhagen Treaty has since been released.
Larry spent much time claiming I was "spinning grand conspiracy theories" and mocked my references to Our Global Neighborhood, going on to call me "run-of-the-mill paranoid" and referencing "black helicopters." Well a funny thing happened on the way to Copenhagen. The "negotiating text" of the treaty includes such gems as this:
Page 43: 41. [Providing financial support shall be additional to developed countries' ODA targets.] [Mandatory contributions from developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in Annex II should form the core revenue stream for meeting the cost of adaptation in conjunction with additional sources including share of proceeds from flexible mechanisms.] [This finance should come from the payment of the adaptation debt by developed country Parties and be based principally on public-sector funding, while other alternative sources could be considered.] [[Sources of new and additional financial support for adaptation] [Financial resources of the "Convention Adaptation Fund"] [may] [shall] include:
(a) [Assessed contributions [of at least 0.7% of the annual GDP of developed country Parties] [from developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in Annex II to the Convention] [taking into account historical contribution to concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere];]
(b) [Auctioning of assigned amounts and/or emission allowances [from developed country Parties];]
(c) [Levies on CO2 emissions [from Annex-I Parties [in a position to do so]];]
(d) [Taxes on carbon-intensive products and services from Annex I Parties;]
(e) [[Levies on] [Shares of proceeds from measures to limit or reduce emissions from] international [aviation] and maritime transport;]
(f) Shares of proceeds on the clean development mechanism (CDM), [extension of shares of proceeds to] joint implementation and emissions trading;
(g) [Levies on international transactions [among Annex I Parties];]
(h) [Fines for non-compliance [of Annex I Parties and] with commitments of Annex I Parties and Parties with commitments inscribed in Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol (Annex B Parties);]
(i) [[Additional ODA] [ODA additional to ODA targets] provided through bilateral, regional and other multilateral channels (in accordance with Article 11.5 of the Convention).]]
And this:
Pages 18-19: 38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:
(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.
(b) The Convention's financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts, including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, (c) a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.
(c) The Convention's facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; (c) a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange.
And this:
Page 122: 17. [[Developed [and developing] countries] [Developed and developing country Parties] [All Parties] [shall] [should]:] (a) Compensate for damage to the LDCs economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees; (b) Africa, in the context of environmental justice, should be equitably compensated for environmental, social and economic losses arising from the implementation of response measures.
I would love to hear his take on the draft treaty given its socialist political leanings that I was so "paranoid" about. Since I am pretty sure you have no clue about this, I would also like to hear what he has to say about what is currently going on with the science in regards to Briffa, Mann, D'Arrigo, Kaufman, Esper, Korhola, PNAS, etc. Looks like there's a lot of trouble on the horizon for the AGW cult. I won't bother explaining to a true believer like you as you are a hopeless case, but I would be genuinely interested in hearing what Larry has to say about everything that is going on with the IPCC/UN/AGW trajectory.
Finally, I did visit Larry's blog site at the link you provided in anticipation of finding the other "beat-downs at the ready" he had for me, but was disappointed to find what was mostly a pat-on-the-back regurgitation of the same comments he made on the MMfA thread you referenced. Am I missing something? Let me know what date this "beat-down" occurred and I'll take another look. My guess though is it is the same regurgitated entry I saw and the purported "beat-down" was a Larry-based hero fantasy you conjured up in that AGW-tainted mind of yours. If I am wrong, unlike you, I will retract that claim.