Limbaugh distorts apparently stolen emails to falsely claim global warming is "made up"
Rush Limbaugh -- who had previously condemned the "thugs" who hacked then-Gov. Sarah Palin's email account -- joined right-wing bloggers in touting a series of emails that were apparently stolen from the UK's Climate Research Unit [CRU]. Limbaugh proceeded to distort at least one of the emails in order to falsely suggest that it is evidence that global warming is "made up" and that leading climate scientists have been engaged in "substantial fraud."
Limbaugh distorts email apparently stolen by hacker, claims global warming is "made up" and scientists are engaged in "fraud"
On his November 20 radio show, Limbaugh referenced the alleged theft of CRU emails by what he described as a "hacker." Limbaugh went on to read from an email sent in 1999 by CRU director Phil Jones. Limbaugh falsely suggested that a phrase in the email -- "hide the decline" -- was somehow "evidence" of "substantial fraud."
From the November 20 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: By the way, folks, I want to give you a website to go to when you get a chance. It's called climatedepot.com. Something fascinating has happened, and I was first alerted to this today by our official climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer. A hacker has gotten into the computers at Hadley CRU. That is Britain's largest climate research institute. They are a huge proponent of global warming.
[...]
LIMBAUGH: I don't know if the jury's still out on that, but more and more people are picking up on this. The whole thing as we've -- I've instinctively known this from the get-go 20 years ago. The whole thing's made up. And the reason I know it is because liberals are behind it. When they're pushing something, folks, it's always bogus. It's never what they say it is. There's always a hidden reason behind the objective. The objective -- stated objective is just designed just to get you feeling guilty, responsible, frightened, scared -- and your kids as well. But it looks like substantial fraud, a lot of evidence of substantial fraud in reporting the evidence on global warming. And Clarice Feldman at the AmericanThinker.com is posted one this, and she's got a sample of the purportedly hacked materials on here -- of the 1,079 emails and 72 documents, and they are available online -- the hackers put them up.
"Dear Roy -- or Ray, Mike, and Malcolm, Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I just completed Mike's nature trick of adding in the real temperatures to each series for the last 20 years, i.e., from 1981 onwards, and from the 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline in temperature." To hide the decline in temperature. "Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-September for NH land N of 20 north. The latter two are real for 1999 while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is --" blah-blah-blah-blah-blah.
NASA scientist: Emails do not show that "global warming is a hoax"
NASA's Gavin Schmidt: Critics "are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way." Wired's Threat Level blog reported on November 20 that Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said: "There's nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax. ... There's no funding by nefarious groups. There's no politics in any of these things; nobody from the [United Nations] telling people what to do. There's nothing hidden, no manipulation. It's just scientists talking about science, and they're talking relatively openly as people in private e-mails generally are freer with their thoughts than they would be in a public forum. The few quotes that are being pulled out [are out] of context. People are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way." Schmidt is a contributor to the Real Climate blog, which has stated that some of the stolen CRU emails "involve people" at Real Climate.
Email Limbaugh read was distorted, "pulled out of context"
Real Climate: Jones email "pulled out of context." In a November 20 post, Real Climate's staff, which is made up of several working climate scientists, cited Jones' 1999 email -- which Limbaugh read -- as "one example" of "instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded 'gotcha' phrases [being] pulled out of context." Jones' November 16, 1999, email reads:
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
LSE Prof: Scientists use "trick" to mean "a clever way of doing something." A November 20 Guardian article reported that Bob Ward, director of policy and communications at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, said of Jones' email: "It does look incriminating on the surface, but there are lots of single sentences that taken out of context can appear incriminating. ... You can't tell what they are talking about. Scientists say 'trick' not just to mean deception. They mean it as a clever way of doing something - a short cut can be a trick."
Real Climate: "trick" Jones referenced is a method for making the "context
of the recent warming ... clear" and isn't "problematic ... at all." Noting that
"[s]cientists often use the term 'trick' to refer to a 'a good way to deal with
a problem,' " Real Climate explained:
No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded "gotcha" phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term "trick" to refer to a "a good way to deal with a problem", rather than something that is "secret", and so there is nothing problematic in this at all.
Real Climate: "hiding the decline" refers to method that is "completely appropriate." Real Climate further explained:
As for the 'decline', it is well known that Keith Briffa's maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the "divergence problem"-see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while 'hiding' is probably a poor choice of words (since it is 'hidden' in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
Jones reportedly "explained
he was not trying to mislead." The New Zealand magazine Investigate
reported on November 20:
TGIF asked Jones about the controversial email discussing hiding "the decline", and Jones explained he was not trying to mislead.
"No, that's completely wrong. In the sense that they're talking about two different things here. They're talking about the instrumental data which is unaltered -- but they're talking about proxy data going further back in time, a thousand years, and it's just about how you add on the last few years, because when you get proxy data you sample things like tree rings and ice cores, and they don't always have the last few years. So one way is to add on the instrumental data for the last few years."
Jones told TGIF he had no idea what me meant by using the words "hide the decline".
"That was an email from ten years ago. Can you remember the exact context of what you wrote ten years ago?
Limbaugh previously denounced Palin email hackers as "Obama thugs"
Limbaugh called Palin email
hackers "thugs" and asked: "Do we live in a sick era, or what?" On the September 18,
2008, edition of his show, Limbaugh decried
the "thugs" who hacked Palin's email account:
And then of course Obama, folks, is showing who he really is. The community organizer, the street agitator, the Chicago thug, clear the playing field, it's on display for everybody to see. Sarah Palin's e-mails, personal e-mails have been hacked, no doubt by Obama thugs, they dropped 30 people up there in Alaska trying to dig up dirt on her. Now they got some thugs that found her personal e-mail address, and the reaction to this is stunning. The Drive-Bys are not upset about this at all.
In fact, ABC, get this headline: "Palin's E-mail Habits Echo Worst Practices of Bush Administration, Expert Says." So we have the vice presidential candidate on the Republican ticket's personal e-mail hacked, they post screen shots on the Internet of her personal e-mails, she's now being criticized for using a personal account to conduct state business. This is why, by the way, presidents and vice presidents do not use e-mail, be it personal or business. And now we've got people coming around saying that she's irresponsible, the hackers have uncovered some fraud on her part. Do we live in a sick era, or what?
After all, we always knew it was a hoax, because Richard Haass and others have been telling us so for years!
On manipulating America with environmental issues:
“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. …The real enemy then is humanity itself. Democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead.”
—From the Club of Rome’s “The First Global Revolution” p. 71,75 1993
Nevermind the thousands of reputable scientist who will tell us about the scientific fact of global climate change. The liars from big business and their AM radio tools will continue to show us micro-trends in climate statistics that pretend that we are not losing the polar ice shelf, that the sea-level is rising, and that precipitation patterns have already begun to change in Micronesia and other places. Why should they care as long as they can continue to rake in millions in profits?
http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/index.php/2005/02/12/rules-suggestions-for-comments/
Why don't they understand plagiarism?
Now that that is out of the way, Delly, have you read any of this stuff yet? Here's an archive of the alleged CRU emails. To quote your favorite dude Stephen McIntyre, "quite breathtaking." Here is one of the alleged emails from Phil "The Data Stinge" Jones to Michael "Sticky" Mann. And here's another alleged email from Jones to Christy. What's that Jones allegedly says about cooling since 1998 since I've heard you squawk about that a few times? I also think the final two sentences he allegedly wrote are pretty telling...chip...chip...chip...
He's a guy who couldn't understand hyperbole and couldn't understand why I would suggest that he should suffer from the very disastrous results that he denies are upcoming.
He doesn't have a leg to stand on, and that's why he makes personal attacks on me - it's his last resort. Larry E, who's great at debunking deniers like this guy, has shot him down repeatedly.
And no, don't even bother going to his links either - they're self-serving, inconsequential and terribly misleading.
Please don't feed the troll.
Oh, my. Um, well, :blush: thank you!
What you call "personal attacks" on you are in actuality just me pointing out your naked AGW zealotry. Spin all you want though.
As for my links that are "self-serving, inconsequential and terribly misleading." Now that really is funny. I provide links here and throughout this thread to what are allegedly the actual written words of some of the AGW All-Stars where they appear to advocate for redefinition of the peer-review process, advocate for deleting information being sought under FOIA and related to IPCC, practice data imprisonment/manipulation, and aggressively practice gate-keeping/manipulation of climate journals, among many other unseemly activities, and I am the one misleading? Hilarious.
I can see why you wouldn't want people to visit them (especially since it appears Jones allegedly shares your hope that deniers die as can be seen in this alleged email). And you wonder why AGW is losing support? You can thank yourself for your cult-like advocacy and your absolute failure to acknowledge any weakness in the AGW theory even when the evidence smacks you square in the jaw. Best of luck keeping up your futile fight...chip...chip...chip...
In regards to the emails, I must say alleged because they have not yet been individually verified as real or exposed as fake, but I cooked up some popcorn read them nonetheless (guess that kind of tells you which way I'm leaning on the authenticity front despite my initial thoughts). I more look forward to seeing what the release of the alleged data files might reveal, but this will do for now. I suggest you throw on your reading glasses and do the same. Here's an archive to the whole batch of alleged emails for your enjoyment. And here's one of the alleged emails about your "real science" at work. The alleged money shot:
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !"
Enjoy your week. I know I will. I do have to add I am not surprised that the AGW faithful here apparently see no problem whatsoever with what is allegedly revealed by these emails. As I've said many times before, show some independent thought and stray from the flock once a decade. The fresh air would do you a world of good (when you confine so many sheep to such a narrow pasture, the smell can be unbearable).
Move along. Nothing to see here...chip...chip...chip...
We already know you are anti-science. Hence, you call anyone with an education elitist. This is WAY too far over your head. Go troll somewhere else.
The sort of ignorance on display in the right wing is exactly what happens when they follow a drop out like Limbaugh. A drop out like Hannity. A drop out like Beck.
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !"
How about this one allegedly from Tom Wigley to Michael Mann?
"If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted."
WAY too far over my head. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
Follow the money, Wesley. Hint: it ain't in science (it is in energy). Who you going to trust? Who has the most to gain and the most to lose?
...that's enough for me to believe...
Rush gave him what he wanted.
Who has the most to lose: everyone who buys energy, who will foot the cost of cap & scam. Small competitors who don't have the profit margins and capitalization to compete on the carbon market - the same ones who operate at a lower margin because they use renewable energy sources. It's a transfer of wealth program, bottom to top, as usual.
This stuff isn't as simple as: "ooh big corporations are out to get us and want to watch the world burn, and the democrats are gonna save us with brilliant new laws!" Everyone has something to gain and something to lose, and everyone in politics is on the take. Some big companies will loose, some big companies will gain. You'll notice the Republicans are out of office and with them the big energy companies, but in office now are the wall street gangsters. It's really not even that simple, there's a lot of fingers in the pie, but as usual the same people will pay for it: the lower classes, who will pay the taxes directly for subsidies and indirectly through price hikes.
People in politics are NOT out to save you, they are out to protect their own interests like everybody else. The difference between them and us is that for some reason we tolerate them using guns to get what they want, while we have to talk people into doing things voluntarily.
The guys that Galileonardo cites are all loons who have been thoroughly discredited. One thinks that finding a couple of very minor problems with data, which didn't change the findings at all, debunked all global warming theses. One thinks that the Sun is responsible. It's amazing that these people are so duped by their preconceived notions that they can't think straight.
As for your "loon" reference, I notice you decided to ignore my response below regarding how the AGW All-Stars allegedly felt about McIntyre's work. Here are the links to some of the alleged emails about McIntyre. They seem awfully scared of the loon, don't they?
As is so often the case, your argument doesn't stand up to the lightest scrutiny.
Conspiracy theorists are crazy chaps, and when they go public with their conspiracy theories, they lose all credibility. Weaselly, now we all know why you're called that.
From: Tom Wigley To: jan.goudriaan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, grassl_h@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Klaus Hasselmann , Jill Jaeger , rector@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, oriordan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, uctpa84@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, john@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mparry@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pier.vellinga@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Re: ATTENTION. Invitation to influence Kyoto. Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 11:52:09 -0700 (MST) Reply-to: Tom Wigley Cc: Mike Hulme , t.mitchell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Eleven,
I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get others to endorse it. Not only do I disagree with the content of this letter, but I also believe that you have severely distorted the IPCC "view" when you say that "the latest IPCC assessment makes a convincing economic case for immediate control of emissions." In contrast to the one-sided opinion expressed in your letter, IPCC WGIII SAR and TP3 review the literature and the issues in a balanced way presenting arguments in support of both "immediate control" and the spectrum of more cost-effective options. It is not IPCC's role to make "convincing cases" for any particular policy option; nor does it. However, most IPCC readers would draw the conclusion that the balance of economic evidence favors the emissions trajectories given in the WRE paper. This is contrary to your statement.
This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you a dis-service. To someone like me, who knows the science, it is apparent that you are presenting a personal view, not an informed, balanced scientific assessment. What is unfortunate is that this will not be apparent to the vast majority of scientists you have contacted. In issues like this, scientists have an added responsibility to keep their personal views separate from the science, and to make it clear to others when they diverge from the objectivity they (hopefully) adhere to in their scientific research. I think you have failed to do this.
Your approach of trying to gain scientific credibility for your personal views by asking people to endorse your letter is reprehensible. No scientist who wishes to maintain respect in the community should ever endorse any statement unless they have examined the issue fully themselves. You are asking people to prostitute themselves by doing just this! I fear that some will endorse your letter, in the mistaken belief that you are making a balanced and knowledgeable assessment of the science -- when, in fact, you are presenting a flawed view that neither accords with IPCC nor with the bulk of the scientific and economic literature on the subject.
Let me remind you of the science. The issue you address is one of the timing of emissions reductions below BAU. Note that this is not the same as the timing of action -- and note that your letter categorically addresses the former rather than the latter issue. Emissions reduction timing is epitomized by the differences between the Sxxx and WRExxx pathways towards CO2 concentration stabilization. It has been clearly demonstrated in the literature that the mitigation costs of following an Sxxx pathway are up to five times the cost of following an equivalent WRExxx pathway. It has also been shown that there is likely to be an equal or greater cost differential for non-Annex I countries, and that the economic burden in Annex I countries would fall disproportionately on poorer people.
Furthermore, since there has been no credible analysis of the benefits (averted impacts) side of the equation, it is impossible to assess fully the benefits differential between the Sxxx and WRExxx stabilization profiles. Indeed, uncertainties in predicting the regional details of future climate change that would arise from following these pathways, and the even greater uncertainties that attend any assessment of the impacts of such climate changes, preclude any credible assessment of the relative benefits. As shown in the WRE paper (Nature v. 379, pp. 240-243), the differentials at the global-mean level are so small, at most a few tenths of a degree Celsius and a few cm in sea level rise and declining to minuscule amounts as the pathways approach the SAME target, that it is unlikely that an analysis of future climate data could even distinguish between the pathways. Certainly, given the much larger noise at the regional level, and noting that even the absolute changes in many variables at the regional level remain within the noise out to 2030 or later, the two pathways would certainly be indistinguishable at the regional level until well into the 21st century.
The crux of this issue is developing policies for controlling greenhouse gas emissions where the reductions relative to BAU are neither too much, too soon (which could cause serious economic hardship to those who are most vulnerable, poor people and poor countries) nor too little, too late (which could lead to future impacts that would be bad for future generations of the same groups). Our ability to quantify the economic consequences of "too much, too soon" is far better than our ability to quantify the impacts that might arise from "too little, too late" -- to the extent that we cannot even define what this means! You appear to be putting too much weight on the highly uncertain impacts side of the equation. Worse than this, you have not even explained what the issues are. In my judgment, you are behaving in an irresponsible way that does you little credit. Furthermore, you have compounded your sin by actually putting a lie into the mouths of innocents ("after carefully examining the question of timing of emissions reductions, we find the arguments against postponement to be more compelling"). People who endorse your letter will NOT have "carefully examined" the issue.
When scientists color the science with their own PERSONAL views or make categorical statements without presenting the evidence for such statements, they have a clear responsibility to state that that is what they are doing. You have failed to do so. Indeed, what you are doing is, in my view, a form of dishonesty more subtle but no less egregious than the statements made by the greenhouse skeptics, Michaels, Singer et al. I find this extremely disturbing.
Tom Wigley
From the beginning of recorded temperatures in 1850 until about 1960, observed temperatures and those derived from tree ring proxies tracked closely. But after that, the two tended to diverge, with recorded temperatures showing warming and tree rings showing some measure of cooling. No one knows why.
Naturally, given the choice between indirectly derived figures and actual observations, scientists will opt for the latter.
Only a really hardline nanny-nanny naysayer on global warming would even imagine that this constitutes evidence of some massive international conspiracy among thousands of scientists, at least dozens of scientific societies, and numerous governments to falsify data and create a global warming problem out of thin air.
Are you actually buying the MMfA/Jones/Schmidt/RC spin on this? Even somebody as dumb as me knows you are too smart to buy this, so that leads me to the obvious conclusion that your response in intended to add circulation to the spin and provide more "nothing to see here" material. That is unfortunate to me because there is plenty to see here and I know that you know that.
Since these are only yet alleged emails, I cannot claim that the contents are authentic, but it does appear at least initially that they are and that they have not been altered. Time will tell if that is correct, but let's assume that to be the case for the sake of argument. Do you not have any problems with the contents of some of these emails? You come across as a moral dude on your blog. No issues with what has allegedly been going on with the All-Stars over the last decade?
Here's the archive of the full set of alleged emails in case you haven't read them. If you haven't dug in, please do. Once you do, I would love to hear your "review." As I mention above, I more look forward to seeing what the release of the alleged data files might reveal, but this will do for now.
IMO a lot of what allegedly happened is purely indefensible and absolutely confirms a lot of the issues I and other "nanny-nanny naysayers" have brought up: lack of data sharing; lack of method transparency; continued propping/manipulation of weak data; lack of public error acknowledgment even after confirmation; journal gate-keeping/manipulation; IPCC manipulation; media collaboration/manipulation; the out-of-proportion influence of a small number of scientists; and, of course, the prevalence of marginalizing/discrediting skeptical scientists.
As for the "divergence problem," Jones' alleged email and subsequent interview spin, and Schmidt's statement, are you buying that too? Jones couldn't remember what he meant by "hide the decline" and the email was "taken out of context?" Give me a break. That is 100% disingenuous.
You explain the divergence problem well, but gloss over what they do about it: essentially splice on the blade (I know they do not really splice it directly but the effect is the same). And you fail to mention the known issues with the "actual observations" as well (if you read the alleged emails you'll see they know full well about at least some of them). I know proxies are hard to come by but given the "problem" with rings, then why has there been such an emphasis on them in so many of the reconstructions? Why truncate or splice on a blade when the data "diverges?"
The whole thing stinks my friend. It already did, but now it reeks. When this story really breaks, do you think this will reflect well on the "consensus?" The scientific method? Most importantly, AGW? Never mind "deniers" like me, how do you think the public at large will interpret this? You can try to minimize it, but this will not be good for AGW. Not at all. Nor will it be good for environmental movements as I had long warned. As I often predict, the AGW house of cards will inevitably come tumbling down, sooner rather than later I hope...chip...chip...chip...
Now for Copenhagen. You can claim your black helicopters again and tell me I'm a wacko, but have you read the negotiating text? I got through page 145. Here again are some of the gems (and you wonder why I say that the UN/IPCC agenda is more concerned with redistribution than it is with "saving the planet?"):
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).]]
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.
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.
Gotta go get my tin foil hat. Enjoy your week.
Like the Holocaust deniers you increasingly resemble, no proof of global warming will ever be strong enough to be accepted, no counter-"proof" will ever be weak enough to be rejected.
Rebutting you can be fun but if done with the idea of convincing you of anything, it is a waste of time.
But I will say two things here and only these two things: One, I have never seen a graph that "hides the decline" indicated by some proxies. It's been right there in every graph I've seen (and in the ones I've linked to previously, such as the ones in this post). It's revealing that the naysayers, who are so dismissive of tree ring proxies for earlier years, want to prefer them to actual observed data when it serves their purpose.
And two, the sections of the Copenhagen work draft you cite amount to establishing a mechanism among the rich industrialized nations to help the poor nations of the world contend with and adapt to climate change. Horrifying. Horrifying.
Now go ahead and say, like you always do, "No, you're the one who" whatever. I know you're dying to.
As for your two things, let's take the tree ring issue first. You have "never seen a graph that 'hides the decline' indicated by some proxies" yet your link includes two of them. First, the hockey stick. How can you claim the decline is "right there" when the tree ring proxies are so obviously truncated using "Mike's trick" and thus do in fact hide the decline (remember that the blue line, if continued, would have turned downward rather than shot into space as does the red observed data line)? It is pretty telling that, when faced with the "divergence problem" climatologists chose to splice on the blade.
Perhaps the use of tree ring proxies should have been reassessed (oh wait, the NAS did that). Ok, then maybe there was some issue with the way the observed data was being manipulated (guess that shoe is about to drop now that the closely guarded CRU methodology has been allegedly exposed).
As for the reconstructed temperature chart that "clarifies" matters on your blog, it too hides the decline in that some of the series either truncate the data to not show the divergence, or again, "Mike's trick" is used. Go ahead and dissect the reconstructions here if you'd like. As a heads-up, Mann, Briffa, Jones, Osborn, and the CRU feature prominently.
As for your other thing, it's funny how the tune changes. When I first talked about global taxation and the redistributionist agenda of the UN/IPCC, you predictably referenced "black helicopters" and "paranoia." But now that you've apparently conceded that that agenda is real, it's just to "help the poor nations" and I guess big meanies like me must just want them to continue suffering. News for you Lawrence. The U.S. is already by far number one on the ODA list, and there are plenty of poor within our own nation that could use the help rather than be burdened by some redistributionist, western-punishing, economy-breaking, global-taxation agenda propagated under the guise of the absolutely weak (and now further weakened) AGW theory. Horrifying indeed. As Phil would say, cheers!
On the other hand you have one sentence cherry-picked from a hacked email whose authenticity cannot be authenticated.
Remind me again why I shouldn't consider you a complete idiot for favoring the latter stack of evidence over the former?
"The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant."
Hmm. What about Nobel laureate/NCAR/IPCC guru Kevin Trenberth? Does he chime in on this? Perhaps so in this alleged email:
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."
And from the same email, allegedly this:
"How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!"
Notice too that in his alleged email he also seems to be pulling a Hannity and confusing weather with climate. I thought that was blasphemy in AGW circles.
This line alone should tell anybody with a brain that Boss Hogg is confused;
I don't believe most scientists are in favor of Global Warming, they're just reporting what's happening in the real world.
The whole thing as we've -- I've instinctively known this from the get-go 20 years ago. The whole thing's made up.
Paranoid drug addict's "instincts" vs. science. That's a close one. Right wingers' emotions and "hunches" are just as important to them as facts.
And the reason I know it is because liberals are behind it.
Wingnut scientific method 101. I disagree with liberals about everything , therefore I know that if liberals know something, it must be false.
The objective -- stated objective is just designed just to get you feeling guilty, responsible, frightened, scared
Oh no ! Responsible ! That's not the wingnut strong suit.
Keep up the good work, Professor !
By attempting to discredit the science of climate change they have actually brought the discussion out in the open for the first time in 8 years.
I believe all the scientists around the world will be glad to discuss their findings with Rush or anyone else. What's that old saying - "Cut your nose off to Spite your Face"
Let the games begin!!
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."
And allegedly says this:
"How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!"
Well here are some excerpts of what Trenberth had to say publicly "out in the open" in his 2007 AGW debate with Bill Gray:
"As Gray suggests, natural variability has always been around and will continue. But we can now clearly demonstrate with climate models (and replicate this in many different countries and groups) that since about 1970 observed climate change is well outside the realm of natural variability."
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to show that specific global and regional changes resulting from global warming are already upon us. The future projections are for much more warming, but with rates of change perhaps a hundred times as fast as those experienced in nature over the past 10,000 years. Just how fast depends on how humans as a whole respond to these warnings. There are uncertainties (although these cut both ways). However, the inertia of the climate system and the long life of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere mean that we are already committed to a significant level of climate change."
"Today’s best climate models are now able to reproduce the observed major climate changes of the past century. When the models are run without human changes in the atmosphere, the natural forcings and intrinsic natural variability fail to capture the increase in global surface temperature over the past 35 years or so. But when the anthropogenic effects are included, the models simulate the observed global temperature record with impressive fidelity."
And here I thought "the science was settled." Oops. I can already hear Lawrence saying, "He's just acknowledging the limitations of the current models as should be expected of any reputable scientist." While that may be true in part, that is not how AGW is publicly advertised. The evidence is portrayed as "robust" and "unequivocal." If this alleged email is authentic, then it would seem that those oft-repeated descriptions of AGW, and the accompanying alarmism, are quite premature and overblown. Out in the open all right. Let the games begin!
Of course, it would be foreshadowed by the news that hell had frozen over.
and hacking is always bad, but for palin the story was publishing her personal emails but this time the issue is revealing the deception of people.
From what they say, these deniers seem to have no understanding whatsoever of the scientific method (e.g., research control, peer-review) or statistics (e.g., variability across time, combining data).
This lack of knowledge is compounded by their obvious politic bias (the sheeplike conservative tactic of attacking anything that threatens their corporate, economic interests).
Nothing remotely equivalent exists for the overwhelming majority of scientists (thousands, worldwide) who believe that human activity is accelerating climate change.
So I suppose the algae blooms, the snail migration, the crop failures, the record droughts, the sea level, the north passage clear all year, the ice shelf changes, the record lake effect snows from unfrozen lakes, the record temps for the last decade... etc. etc. etc. are all part of the "fraud"?
Absolutely knee slapping funny.
Crack a book. Read the words. Let it sink in. Then come back with a serious theory.
There are still many unanswered questions about exactly how things are working and why, but there is a consensus that man-made global warming does exist - it's not made up.
Just like with evolution - they don't yet have all the answers, but the lack of a few answers doesn't mean that the theory of evolution is in question!
Dully, you notice you made Larry blush? Now's "you're" chance! Make your move.
-50 Humanity points.
I laughed so hard I nearly cried.
The hypocrisy of the left is so stunningly shallow and transparent any thinking person can only laugh.
When I was a kid in the third grade, I walked home from school one day with a kid who was complaining about how our teacher scored his tests. She told him not to leave any blanks, so he puts words in the blanks - the ones he could spell. And she still counted them wrong!
I think he went on to become a climate scientist.
Could it be funding? Let's see....don't they all work for the U.S. Govt.? Naw...funding wouldn't have anything to do with it!
Another joke from all you libs. Anytime a "so-called" "denier" brings an opposing viewpoint, you all say "He's just an oil company shill" Well I've got news for you. The U.S. government has spent 10 times promoting AGW than the Oil companies have spent trying to dispute it.
So you are suggesting that these scientists work for the US govt?
Laughing at you wingnut nimrods is a fun sport.
Read the paragraph that MMFA uses as a retort.
"NASA scientist: Emails do not show that "global warming is a hoax"
Who is the person they quote? That would be Gavin Schmidt. Did you read any of the emails? Who were they from? Are you telling me the three people I used as an example do not show up in those emails?
I don't care where they emails were stolen from.
If you would have actually read what I said instead of getting your p***ties in a bunch, because you were in such a hurry to call me names, and show how you think you're intellectually superior, you might have noticed that I was generalizing about the spokespeople for AGW.
If you can't debate them, call them names