Say it ain't so al gore !!!!!!

[onmyknees]

Another shocking disclosure....The father of Global Warming and the Green Movement has faced up to an inconvenient truth !!!!! After years of forcing this radical Green Agenda down our throats ( and making himself a multi millionaire in the process) he now admits his Ethanol push was in hindsight a mistake. What a self serving windbag.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/11/30/you_can_stop_paying_for_al_gores_mistake_108085.ht ml

[trish]

Personally, I was never convinced that gasoline/ethanol mixtures offered a viable way to reduce energy consumption. There never was a scientific consensus on the use of ethanol substitutes. It's a tricky bookkeeping problem to check that the fossil carbon released in planting, irrigating, reaping, refining and mixing is balanced by the fossil carbon not released by burning a mixture that's still 85-90% fossil fuel. Most scientists who have looked into this issue recommended using switch grass in place of corn.

Btw, Al Gore is not the father of Global Warming and refuting Al Gore goes nowhere toward refuting the solid science behind climate theory.

[Faldur]

Lol, "solid science behind climate theory".. ya ok

[trish]

If you have a dissenting paper of your own that you wish to submit for critical analysis, then do so. Mere exclamations of discontent will not be accepted.

[Faldur]

We've been down this path before, I don't believe in your religion, you don't believe in my sources of dispute. Life's too short.. nothing either of us say will change our opinion.

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ipcc-scientists-caught-producing-false-data-to-push-global-warming.html
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/videos/337-hannitys-america-global-warming-and-false-data
http://www.paulmacrae.com/
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf

[trish]

The evidence of warming continues to roll in from all directions. Example: NASA reports that lakes around the world are warming at an average rate of 0.45C per decade.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earthb20101123.html

Your child is sick. You consult the world’s more reputable doctors. One hundred of them. Ninety eight agree that your child should be given treatment X. Two say ignore it, if it doesn’t go away your child will be better off with the disease God gave him. What do you do? What DO you do?

http://www.lies.com/wp/2010/11/19/profiles-in-republican-courage-1-bob-inglis-swan-song/

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/11/new_house_climate_czar.php

When you don’t like the message and you can’t do the science, attack the messengers (this thread is a case in point__do you clowns really think climate science rests on Al Gore's opinion of the efficacy of ethanol???)...

http://climatesight.org/2010/11/17/the-real-story-of-climategate/

...or just lie, distort and plagiarize:

http://gawker.com/5696803/report-questioning-climate-change-turns-out-to-be-plagiarized

[Faldur]

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/images/march2008/210308graph2.jpg
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/images/april2008/040408graph.jpg

[Faldur]

http://www.reappropriate.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/manbearpig1.jpg

[trish]

I see you're a fan of the Hadley model.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/projections/

I also see you think a cartoon caricature of Al Gore constitutes an scientific argument. You have yet to read, understand and answer the points made by the links above.

[Faldur]

I find a caricature of Al Gore extremely amusing. Hardly scientific, but then again neither is Al.

I have read plenty, and find there is no scientific evidence that man made global climate change exists. And I don't buy in to the "do something" disease that just in case it does. The economic cost to the world would be devastating.

Trish your an incredibly intelligent person, we have been down this road before. You have your beliefs and I have mine. I respect your position, but do not agree with it.

[trish]

Below is your graph depicting a portion of the Hadley data , and below that the complete graph. Making a long term linear prognostication based on the last 7 years is like trying to predict where a car will be at the end of a five hour road trip by observing it for seven minutes two hours into the trip. Now you tell me which graph cherry picks the data.

[hippifried]

It feels cold outside. Therefore global warming must be a myth.
But then again, the leaves are still on the fig tree in December. So winter's never coming?
Where's the autumnal equivalent of Punxutawney Phil? It's all just so confusing.

[russtafa]

What would Al Gore make of the ice age that would have got him going. Theres always been climate change and always will be

[trish]

What would Al Gore make of the ice age that would have got him going.Who gives two shits about what Al Gore thinks? He's not a climatologist.


Theres always been climate change and always will be Yes, there have always been climate changes. There have always been long periods of climate stability as well, maintained by various negative feedback loops. Brief, but often catastrophic, periods of instability and transition occur when the feedback is disrupted and the system seeks a new dynamic equilibrium. What can disrupt a long period of stability? The Earth’s precession is responsible for a nearly periodic series of climate swings. A large meteor impact can create a temporary climate instability of sufficient duration to bring about large scale extinction, even if it doesn’t bring about a transition to a new climate phase. The biosphere too is one of the feedback governors. Before the evolution of photosynthesis there was very little oxygen in the atmosphere. Indeed, oxygen was toxic to most biota. Photosynthesizing plants loaded the atmosphere with so much oxygen many forms that didn't develop an oxygen tolerance went extinct. Some forms even developed an oxygen dependence! Who might they be?

Yes there has always been climate change and there has always been long periods of dull, uneventful climate stability. The last uneventful period fostered the growth of civilization and the intellectual development of humankind.

[TranFan]

OOPS!

CRU data, minus the + multipliers, reveal NO statistical warming at all:

A.J. Strata has done some significance tests:
CRU Raw Temp Data Shows No Significant Warming Over Most Of The World
Published by AJStrata at StrataSphere

Bottom Line – Using two back-of-the-envelope tests for significance against the CRU global temperature data I have discovered:


75% of the globe has not seen significant peak warming or cooling changes between the period prior to 1960 and the 2000′s which rise above a 0.5°C threshold, which is well within the CRU’s own stated measurement uncertainties o +/- 1°C or worse.
Assuming a peak to peak change (pre 1960 vs 2000′s) should represent a change greater than 20% of the measured temperature range (i.e., if the measured temp range is 10° then a peak-to-peak change of greater than 2° would be considered ‘significant’) 87% the Earth has not experienced significant temperature changes between pre 1960 period and the 2000′s.

[russtafa]

OOPS!

CRU data, minus the + multipliers, reveal NO statistical warming at all:

A.J. Strata has done some significance tests:
CRU Raw Temp Data Shows No Significant Warming Over Most Of The World
Published by AJStrata at StrataSphere

Bottom Line – Using two back-of-the-envelope tests for significance against the CRU global temperature data I have discovered:


75% of the globe has not seen significant peak warming or cooling changes between the period prior to 1960 and the 2000′s which rise above a 0.5°C threshold, which is well within the CRU’s own stated measurement uncertainties o +/- 1°C or worse.
Assuming a peak to peak change (pre 1960 vs 2000′s) should represent a change greater than 20% of the measured temperature range (i.e., if the measured temp range is 10° then a peak-to-peak change of greater than 2° would be considered ‘significant’) 87% the Earth has not experienced significant temperature changes between pre 1960 period and the 2000′s.

well all the chicken littles will be crying into their baby food

[trish]

OOPS!

CRU data, minus the + multipliers, reveal NO statistical warming at all:

A.J. Strata has done some significance tests:
CRU Raw Temp Data Shows No Significant Warming Over Most Of The World
Published by AJStrata at StrataSphere

Bottom Line – Using two back-of-the-envelope tests for significance against the CRU global temperature data I have discovered:


75% of the globe has not seen significant peak warming or cooling changes between the period prior to 1960 and the 2000′s which rise above a 0.5°C threshold, which is well within the CRU’s own stated measurement uncertainties o +/- 1°C or worse.
Assuming a peak to peak change (pre 1960 vs 2000′s) should represent a change greater than 20% of the measured temperature range (i.e., if the measured temp range is 10° then a peak-to-peak change of greater than 2° would be considered ‘significant’) 87% the Earth has not experienced significant temperature changes between pre 1960 period and the 2000′s.

Good news! I sincerely hope your right. So just to be sure, why not display and explain the actual back of the envelop calculations.

[onmyknees]

If you have a dissenting paper of your own that you wish to submit for critical analysis, then do so. Mere exclamations of discontent will not be accepted.



Trish...part of the point of the post was to help some better understand that when these tree huggers try to jam this shit down our throats, there's always
1. Laws of diminishing returns
2. many unintended consequences.

It's perfectly an acceptable and defensible position to believe the earth may be getting warmer. I'm still open to that myself, albeit that window is closing quickly. What I loath is guys like Al Gore the poster boy for the movement enriching himself while the rest of us deal with the unintended consequences of Ethanol. GE and GM are in the same bag of shit as far as I'm concerned. They're taking huge government subsidies for alternative energy and doing their damndest to shove inferior products like the Volt and those stupid fucking light bulbs down our throats. The whole movement is filled with hypocrites and blow hards , and yes LIARS, and those who stand to make huge profits from cap and trade. As a free market guy, there's nothing wrong with profits, but cap and trade ain't a free market enterprise !


Is it a good idea to find alternative energy sources and break the grip of OPEC ?...YES
Is it a good idea to keep our air, lakes, rivers clean? ......YES
Is it a good idea for all of us to save and conserve energy?...............YES
Is it a good idea to recycle resources? ...................YES
Is it a good idea to stop burning coal ? ..............YES

So it would seem we have some common ground.......But please stop running that man made global warming routine up my flagpole !!

[trish]

It mathematics my friend. A significant driver of the current climate energy imbalance is the release of megatons of once fossilized carbon into the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide. I don't much care if your flagpole can deal with it or not. If you have a better alternative to restore the balance, compete for a grant, or apply for a patent and start competing in the marketplace; but please stop whining about how your flagpole can't take the strain.

Look, there are two issues here.

1. The Earth’s atmosphere has turned opaque to the infrared band due to the atmospheric dumping of megatons of fossilized carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide). Consequently there is an annual net energy imbalance (i.e. more energy enters the system than can radiate away as heat). The Earth is taking on the characteristics expected of a climate driven by accumulating excesses of heat.

2. Because past and present human activity is a significant driver of global climate change, humans can and should take action to reverse the transition.

The first issue is empirical. It can be and has been settled. The scientific consensus is for the proposition. The basic mechanisms are well understood, the computer simulations fit the data from satellites, ice cores, meteorological records etc. The loudest dissenting voices are largely from world of politics.

The dissenting reasons, however, never adequately address the scientific issue. It’s too costly to cut back on fossil fuels. There’s no viable energy alternative. Ethanol is an economic mistake. We’re being scammed by would be alternative energy providers. The U.N. is making a play for one world government. These are not reasons against (1). These are reasons leveled against the conclusion of (2). Claim (2) is not entirely an empirical issue. In-so-far as it is prescriptive, it is a moral issue which science cannot pretend to answer. It cannot be decided entirely by experts. Everyone has a voice in (2). So if you cast your vote on the side of those who would rather sit back and wait and see what happens, that’s your preogative; but the vote by the experts on issue (1) is in. Global warming is happening and human activity is a significant driver.

[hippifried]

Is it a good idea to find alternative energy sources and break the grip of OPEC ?...YES
Is it a good idea to keep our air, lakes, rivers clean? ......YES
Is it a good idea for all of us to save and conserve energy?...............YES
Is it a good idea to recycle resources? ...................YES
Is it a good idea to stop burning coal ? ..............YES

See? The reality is & always has been that no matter what labels get put on people, or what angle their approach is from, the basic goals are the same. A good idea is a good idea regardless. All this political rancor, name calling, bogus accusations, & lame attempts to put a face target on everything makes no sense whatsoever, & just gets in the way of reaching those goals. Wing politics are counter-productive, & mostly just lies. It's 2 dimentional. Personally, I prefer to look at politics as a sphere.

Diminishing returns are just a matter of opinion, depending on what returns you're looking for, & what your timetable is. Mostly, it's just a matter of attitude. If you think you're losing, you are, & vice versa. Nothing's static, & not everything can be measured in dollars & cents.

All actions have consequences, & even inaction is an action. Anybody who thinks they can predict all the consequences of any action is just lying to themselves. Therefore there's always going to be unintended consequences. Whether you see them as a problem or an opportunity is just a matter of personal attitude.

Every movement, party, or group of adherents of any kind is "filled with hypocrites and blow hards , and yes LIARS". So what? What does that have to do with the idea? It's irrelevant. For example: Whether or not you buy into this argument or that on the topic of global climate, it's still not a good idea to polute the air & water, or to burn all the fossil fuels we can find as fast as possible. Everybody has flaws. Why dwell on them when there's more important things to think about? The common goal is always the betterment of society as a whole for ourselves & our progeny.

I( like the light bulbs. For twice the price for the bulb itself, you get the same output for 1/5 of the energy usage, & they last 4X as long. It's a bargain.

Oh & BTW: Cap & trade is how we got the sulphuric acid out of coal emissions in the major smokestack industries. It worked, & most people don't even know about it or remember that it happened.

[TranFan]

Why should I contact the author, let`s ask the "prestigious" CRU :

Dr. Phil Jones of CRU, via BBC: Q: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

A: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level.

So even after the CRU manipulated the data by using + multipliers they still could not achieve the 95% level !!!

By using their manipulated data graphs you prove yourself as biased and as scientifically unethical as they are.

:cool:

[trish]

Once again, this graph addresses your issue.

[onmyknees]

Here's your problem Trish......Your movement has lost all credibility. It's become a side show. It's really sad because I don't like sounding like some Neanderthal when it comes to the enviornment because I'm actually not. We probably agree on at least some things, but I can't take these people serious any more. It's become a religion to them. With respect to clean air and clean water, I'm probably closer to you than I am to the right....I like to think of myself as a conservationalist rather than an enviornmentalist.


UN climate change talks start with appeal to Mayan goddess (http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2010/12/03/wacked-un-climate-change-talks-start-with-appeal-to-mayan-goddess/)

Posted by: ST on December 3, 2010 at 4:55 pm
<B>:

With United Nations climate negotiators facing an uphill battle to advance their goal of reducing emissions linked to global warming (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/27/AR2010112702781.html), it’s no surprise that the woman steering the talks appealed to a Mayan goddess Monday.
</B>

Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, invoked the ancient jaguar goddess Ixchel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Text_document_with_red_question_mark.svg" class="image"><img alt="Text document with red question mark.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/Text_document_with_red_question_mark.svg/40px-Text_document_with_red_question_mark.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/a/a4/Text_document_with_red_question_mark.svg/40px-Text_document_with_red_question_mark.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixchel) in her opening statement to delegates gathered in Cancun, Mexico (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/28/AR2010112802975.html), noting that Ixchel was not only goddess of the moon, but also “the goddess of reason, creativity and weaving. May she inspire you — because today, you are gathered in Cancun to weave together the elements of a solid response to climate change, using both reason and creativity as your tools.”
She called for “a balanced outcome” which would marry financial and emissions commitments from industrialized countries aimed at combating climate change with “the understanding of fairness that will guide long-term mitigation efforts.”
“Excellencies, the goddess Ixchel would probably tell you that a tapestry is the result of the skilful interlacing of many threads,” said Figueres, who hails from Costa Rica and started her greetings in Spanish before switching to English. “I am convinced that 20 years from now, we will admire the policy tapestry that you have woven together and think back fondly to Cancun and the inspiration of Ixchel.”

[trish]

It's not my movement. My interest is in the science. I don't need, nor am I trying to convince anyone to conserve, go green or write their representative in support of a treaty. I'm just tired of people making scientific pronouncements based on their politics.

[onmyknees]

It's not my movement. My interest is in the science. I don't need, nor am I trying to convince anyone to conserve, go green or write their representative in support of a treaty. I'm just tired of people making scientific pronouncements based on their politics.


Understood.........but the two ( politics and science) are now inexorably linked and used by both sides....that's the point I was attempting to make. That horse has out of the barn Trish and there's no gettin' it back in. I wish the science was pure Trish...but all those leaked emails tell me there's more at play here.

[TranFan]

Uh, no.

That only proves you will willingly used manipulated data graphs to attempt to perpetuate a scientific fraud.

Any perusal of raw data sets compared to the manipulated sets coming out of CRU/GISS et al prove the use of manipulation possibly via + multipliers or of deleting raw data not useful to their agenda.

Not only does the raw data sets prove it, their own emails admit to using + multipliers to "hide the declines".

The debate`s over. Even the IPCC authors are fully out of the closet now.OTTMAR EDENHOFER, co-chair of the IPCC's Working Group III and lead author of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 stated recently :

"Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization... One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."

[trish]

Tell me how multipliers are used in the first graph below (which depicts three independently obtained data sets). Any attempt to minimize the declines with a multiplier would also minimize the increases. A multiplier can be used to either amplify or attenuate the noise in a data set (but everything is changes in proportion when multipliers are used). A multiplier is nothing more than a change of units. The vertical scale in this graph is 1/10th of a degree Centigrade. So the multiplier is 10. It was used to amplify the fluctuations rather than attenuate them.

[TranFan]

Uh, nope.

Here`s the CRU internal documents:

From the CRU code file osborn-tree6/briffa_sep98_d.pro , used to prepare a graph purported to be of Northern Hemisphere temperatures and reconstructions.
;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,- 0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

Source:
Eric S. Raymond uber programmer directly involved with Linux

[trish]

used to prepare a graphBut not the graph above.

[russtafa]

Global warming is not the problem it's too many people on the planet to support it comfortably and thats why we are having these problems and wars its over a dwindling amount of resources for far too many people.The host is being killed by the parasite

[TranFan]

Uh,still no.

Your use of manipulated graphs is even more dishonest.

I could use your, and theirs, endpoint fallacy to prove massive global cooling but it would not make it a scientific fact either because we all know temperature is stochastic.

The GISS land based global-temperature dataset is even the more fallible because we know the distorted readings came from heat island effect. Once exposed the scientists in charge of the network of US temperature stations removed from the public domain the list of precise locations for the sensors.They then went on to multiply the heat island effect to get their desired political, not scientific, results.

[hippifried]

Everything's a conspiracy. We're doomed. We're all going to die!!!

None of it matters anyway because the earth is really flat, perched on the backs of 5 giant elephants, who are standing on the back of a giant turtle. & sooner or later, Brahma's going to wake up from his drean & all this will go poof.

[trish]

I could use your, and theirs, endpoint fallacy to prove massive global cooling ...No, but you can prove you're idiot who will put his faith in a linear extrapolation based on 4.7% of the collected data rather face the obvious conclusions that follow from the full set.

[TranFan]

4.7%

Uh no. They`ve only been collecting accurate data since 1979.

So far your batting average is .000. Your little chart you defend as any AGW zealot would has been debunked long ago. The facts of how I`ve already stated and feel no need to detail it any further since it is accepted by all except the remaining few zealots.

Now back to your endpoint fallacy chart created via political junk science. If we wish to do away with endpoint fallacy we can simply pull out the entire data sets including total proxies and not the truncated graph you so desperately rely on.

The first and second graphs reveals the temperature and CO2 information derived from the Vostok ice cores and the infamous M.Mann IPCC hockey stick versus the stripped out invalid proxy data. All temperature variations occur FIRST.The IPCC, in the AR4 Scientific Basis report: “Variations in CO2 over the last 420 kyr broadly followed Antarctic temperature, typically by several centuries to a millennium”

357730

Notice the flat-lining of temperatures juxtaposed the the straight up line of CO2. The CO2 fails to drive temperatures since they never have and never will.

357731

Fischer, Wahlen, Smith, Mastroianni: “High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations.”

Siegenthaler et al: “The lags of CO2 with respect to the Antarctic temperature over glacial terminations V to VII are 800, 1600, and 2800 years, respectively”

The third graph reveals further proof (like we need more) of malfeasance via the CRU from the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis.The Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations.The result is failure to reach the 95% confidence level even when MANIPULATING station data.



357732



Finally, we can look back hundreds of millions of years and see that CO2 always lagged and notice during extreme ice ages CO2 was over 15 times higher than it is today, roughly 4500 ppm. Man made CO2 represents only 0.001 percent of the atmosphere today and cannot drive temperatures for the obvious stated reason, it does not and never has.


357733


I suggest you read the captured internal documents of the CRU before you post that debunked graph ever again:

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/

“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.”

Phil Jones

[trish]

Of course if you want to test the hypothesis that the industrial release of fossil carbon into the atmosphere is a significant driver of the global energy imbalance then the relevant period to study is from industrialization forward. If you want to test whether the Earth's precession can drive an energy imbalance and release captured (but not fossilized) carbon then the geologic periods covered by the ice core data is relevant. You don't seem to know what you want to study or what you want to test.

[african1]

trish, why are you wasting your breath and energy with these brainless people. I mean come on, if with all the available data, videos, articles out there, they still can't figure it out, well I don't think you'll be able to help them.

[Rogers]

Hi trish! :)

Hi White_Male_Canada!

LMAO. You just can't resist the name Al Gore can you. Your numerous spacing typos, use of quotes out of context, not giving links, use of logical fallacies, and the use of that stupid cool emoticon always gives you away. What a clown!

Didn't Thom Bergeron bitch slap you over the Plame Affair years ago? :P Gee, how many accounts you still have here that haven't been banned yet?
YouTube - Pearl Jam - Sad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MscMAv7XHYc)

[Rogers]

Uh, nope.

Here`s the CRU internal documents:

From the CRU code file osborn-tree6/briffa_sep98_d.pro , used to prepare a graph purported to be of Northern Hemisphere temperatures and reconstructions.
;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,- 0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

Source:
Eric S. Raymond uber programmer directly involved with Linux

Just another example of your selective quoting. You forgot these lines from the file:

";filter_cru,5.,/nan,tsin=yyy+yearlyadj,tslow=tslow
;oplot,timey,tslow,thick=5,color=20"

Know what those little semi-colons mean? :P
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/07/findings-muir-russell-review

YouTube - 6. Climate Change -- Those hacked e-mails (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg)

[TranFan]

Of course if you want to test the hypothesis that the industrial release of fossil carbon into the atmosphere is a significant driver of the global energy imbalance then the relevant period to study is from industrialization forward. .


Still a big no.

You are repeating very old and very biased "science". The IPCC said the same thing back in 2007, " “It is very likely that anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases caused most of the observed increase in temperature since the mid-20th century...The CO2 radiative forcing increased by 20% in the last 10 years."

By "very likely" they did not mean the standard 95% confidence level. So again, another biased opinion based on dishonest "science". The 20% number for anthropogenic CO2 is false.We know that because CO2 concentration rose 5%, from 360 to 378 W m–2, with an increase in aggregate forcing of ~0.26 W m–2, or <1% during their dishonest guess of 10 years. That is 1/20th the value of their dishonest "science" ,aka political opinion, of a 20% increase.

I`m not willing to enter into the arcane nuts and bolts of their dishonest methods of evaluating climate sensitivity because it is dry, boring, and painfully obvious the extent of deceit.


Now onto the rantings of the other denier:

" Just another example of your selective quoting. You forgot these lines from the file:";filter_cru,5.,/nan,tsin=yyy+yearlyadj,tslow=tslow
;oplot,timey,tslow,thick=5,color=20"Know what those little semi-colons mean? "

A denier using selective quoting to accuse others of selective quoting?

Know what this means?

"restore,filename='*.idlsave';[..]

As for the "review" of the CRU, that is as embarrassing as the ranter`s first proven error:

-The panel appears to have been deliberately selected to have a majority who would not address the review objectively and to exclude sceptical views entirely.

-UEA appointed Oxburgh as chairman of the panel in the full knowledge that he had conflicts of interest.

-UEA restricted the scope of the Oxburgh inquiry to published papers only, avoiding the serious allegations related to the IPCC activities of CRU staff.

-The scope was further restricted to the conduct of the scientists. UEA had led the Science and Technology Committee members to believe that the quality of CRU’s scientific work would be re-assessed. The committee’s chairman, Phil Willis, felt that the UEA had misled them.

-Lord Oxburgh’s report misled the public by stating that the papers were chosen ‘on the advice of the Royal Society.’

-Lord Rees said that he had consulted with experts about the papers. In fact he had only discussed them with Sir Brian Hoskins, who had said he did not know CRU’s works.

-CRU blocked earlier FO requests for complete record keeping data.(UK.Tel.)

[trish]

Me:
Of course if you want to test the hypothesis that the industrial release of fossil carbon into the atmosphere is a significant driver of the global energy imbalance then the relevant period to study is from industrialization forward.TranFan:
a big no.Really, if you want to test whether industrial releases of fossilized carbon drives climate you don't have to look at the data dating from the industrial age? Is that what you're saying? You seem to be saying only the last decade is important, and oh yes, the last several geological eons as well...but certainly not the last hundred and fifty to two hundred years! Really??

The charts you posted are from Pivovarova’s report entitled “How warming is made: The case of Russia." The report is not peer reviewed, it contains no references, no foot notes, it doesn’t appear in a professional journal but is published by the Institute of Economic Analysis of which Pivovarova is a member. Pivovarova’s complaint is very specific and pertains to the years from 1960 to 1990. HIs claim is that for those years Hadley systematically ignored 19 rural Russian stations (which according to Pivovarova means the Hadley data ignores 40% of the Russian land area). On page 21 of that report Pivovarova produces the “corrected” data set for the relevant period of industrial warming. Here is his chart. In spite of the “modifications” it’s supportive of the hypothesis that the burning fossil fuel has been a driver of the Earth’s climatic heat imbalance. I’m surprised you posted most of the other charts in this paper but not this final one.

[TranFan]

" it’s supportive of the hypothesis that the burning fossil fuel has been a driver of the Earth’s climatic heat imbalance"

The report claims no such thing as pertaining to the false AGW theory. It debunks the CRU.

Still no.




" The Hadley Center calculation was overestimated by 0.6C.If the procedures for processing climate data found on the
Example Russia also apply with respect to data pertaining to
other regions world, the inevitable correction of the calculation of global temperature and its changes in the 20 century can be quite significant. "



Continuing with flawed forcing calculations we move to the IPCC and their CGMs:

"A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data


Authors: G. G. Anagnostopoulosa; D. Koutsoyiannisa; A. Christofidesa; A. Efstratiadisa; N. Mamassisa
Affiliation: a Department of Water Resources, Faculty of Civil Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Heroon Polytechneiou 5, GR 157 80, Zographou, Greece


Conclusions

It is claimed that GCMs provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. Examining the local performance of the models at 55 points, we found that local projections do not correlate well with observed measurements. Furthermore, we found that the correlation at a large spatial scale, i.e. the contiguous USA, is worse than at the local scale.

However, we think that the most important question is not whether GCMs can produce credible estimates of future climate, but whether climate is at all predictable in deterministic terms.Koutsoyiannis (2010) created a toy model with simple, fully-known, deterministic dynamics, and with only two degrees of freedom (i.e. internal state variables or dimensions); but it exhibits extremely uncertain behaviour at all scales, including trends, fluctuations, and other features similar to those displayed by the climate. It does so with a constant external forcing, which means that there is no causality relationship between its state and the forcing. The fact that climate has many orders of magnitude more degrees of freedom certainly perplexes the situation further, but in the end it may be irrelevant; for, in the end, we do not have a predictable system hidden behind many layers of uncertainty which could be removed to some extent, but, rather, we have a system that is uncertain at its heart."


Correlation is not causation. Forcing values are false. Projections baseless.CO2 has NEVER been proven to drive temperatures.

[trish]

" it’s supportive of the hypothesis that the burning fossil fuel has been a driver of the Earth’s climatic heat imbalance"

The report claims no such thing as pertaining to the false AGW theory. It debunks the CRU.

Still no.
Pivovarova is critical of Hadley and he claims the Hadley treatment of the data over the last several decades creates more warming than there is. Indeed Pivovarova did his best to flatten out the graph of the temperature anomaly over the years since 1960. But even he is not able to erase the evidence of warming even during those decades. Look at Pivovarova's final chart. From the moment near 1965 when the curve crosses the zeroth horizontal, the area under the curve above the horizontal significantly exceeds the area above the curve the under the horizontal (i.e. the integral of the anomaly from 1965 to 2006 is positive). Moreover, Pivovarova recognizes the significance of including the data back to 1850 and he includes this in his final chart. His chart demonstrates that even a very conservative treatment of the data supports the hypothesis of man made greenhouse heat imbalance.

[russtafa]

All country's should willingly agree to limit there populations especially the third world and we would not have this problem

[russtafa]

Please excuse my spelling when drinking whisky

[Rogers]

A denier using selective quoting to accuse others of selective quoting?

Know what this means?

"restore,filename='*.idlsave';[..]

As for the "review" of the CRU, that is as embarrassing as the ranter`s first proven error:

Nice asterix. :P You can't even post one line without editing it. Classic White_Male_Canada. But thanks for confirming what we already knew about you, that you're a complete fraud. Since right-wing blogs are your sole source of "science", after all that's all you got left, here's one with the full code that you seem to have missed. Fortan for n00bs, like yourself:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/iandouglas/100004391/fudgefactor-another-climategate-red-herring/

As for Andrew Montford, the chartered accountant blogger...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/aug/19/climate-sceptics-mislead-public
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/

What Phil Jones actually said:
YouTube - 8a. Climate Change - Phil Jones and the 'no warming for 15 years' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PWDFzWt-Ag)