Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

There are 63620 comments on the Newsday story from Dec 14, 2008, titled Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt.... In it, Newsday reports that:

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#44621 Mar 20, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Just a lot of he said, she said. Where is the solid science that disproves global warming? BTW, the so called hockey stick has been validated many times.
You're determined to ignore inconvenient truths of Mann's hockey stick.

Mann and the Oxburgh Panel

The Mann libel case has been attracting increasing commentary, including from people outside the climate community. Integral to Mann’s litigation are representations that he was “investigated” by 6-9 investigations, all of which supposedly gave him “exonerations” on wide-ranging counts, including “scientific misconduct”,“fraud”,“academic fraud”,“data falsification”,“statistical manipulation”,“manipulation of data” and even supposed findings that his work was “properly conducted an fairly presented”. Mann also represented that these investigations were widely covered in international and national media and thus known to Steyn and the other defendants.

In today’s post, I’ll look closely at the Oxburgh panel, one of the investigations cited in Mann’s pleadings. However, contrary to the claims in Mann’s litigation, not only did the Oxburgh panel not exonerate Mann, at their press conference, Oxburgh panelist David Hand, then President of the Royal Statistical Society, made very disparaging and critical comments about Mann’s work, describing it as based on “inappropriate” statistics that led to “exaggerated” results. These comments were widely reported in international media, later covered in a CEI article that, in turn, was reported by National Review. Moreover, information obtained from FOI in the UK a couple of years ago shows that Mann objected vehemently to criticism from Oxburgh panelist, which he characterized as a “rogue opinion” and unsuccessfully sought a public apology.

Mann’s claim that the Oxburgh panel “exonerated” Mann on counts ranging from scientific misconduct to statistical manipulation to proper conduct and fair presentation of results has no more validity than his claim to have been awarded a Nobel prize for his supposedly seminal work “document[ing] the steady rise in surface temperatures during the 20th Century and the steep increase in measured temperatures since the 1950s.”
http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/17/mann-and-t...

(continued below)
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#44622 Mar 20, 2014
(continued from previous post)

Mann and the Muir Russell Inquiry #1

In my most recent post, I showed that Mann’s claim to have been “exonerated” by the Oxburgh inquiry had no more validity than Mann’s claim to have won a Nobel prize. In today’s post, I’ll continue my series on the “investigations” by showing that Mann’s claim to have been “exonerated” by the Muir Russell inquiry is equally invalid.

In their memoranda supporting their original motions to dismiss, both National Review and CEI had observed (correctly) that the Muir Russell panel had limited their findings to “CRU scientists” and contested Mann’s assertion that the Muir Russell panel had made any findings regarding Mann himself, let alone “exonerated” him.

In Mann’s Reply Memorandum, he vociferously rejected the (correct) assertion that the Muir Russell had not exonerated Mann himself, describing such assertion as merely an attempt to “obfuscate and misrepresent”. Mann supported this bluster with an apparent quotation from the Muir Russell report, but the phrase within the quotation marks does not actually occur within the Muir Russell report. As shown below, Mann and/or his lawyers subtly altered the quotation to more supportive language.
http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/21/mann-and-t...

Mann Misrepresents the UK Commons Committee

Mann’s inclusion of the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (“Commons Committee”) among the investigations that supposedly “investigated” and “exonerated” Mann personally is as invalid as his similar claims regarding the Oxburgh and Muir Russell inquiries or his claim to have won a Nobel prize.

The Commons Committee (see report here) did not conduct any investigation into Mann’s conduct nor did it make any findings whatever in connection with Mann’s conduct. I’ll demonstrate this in today’s post, which is the third in the present series (previously I discussed the Oxburgh and Muir Russell inquries here and Muir Russell here).

In addition, I’ll also discuss an important discrepancy between the findings of the Muir Russell panel and the report of the Commons Committee concerning the notorious email concerning Jones’ construction of the 1999 WMO diagram (the “trick … to hide the decline”). Whereas the report of the Commons Committee had concluded in respect of this incident that Jones had “no case to answer”, the Muir Russell panel found that the diagram omitted data and was “misleading”. In combination, these constitute the elements of the offence of “falsification” as defined in academic misconduct codes.

Mann’s pleadings also emphasize and rely on international media coverage as an essential element of the defendants’ knowledge of the reports, but media coverage of Jones’ appearance before the Commons Committee was savage.
http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/24/mann-misre...

(continued below)
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#44623 Mar 20, 2014
(continued from above 3/3)

Mann Misrepresents the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change

Next in the list of misrepresentations by Mann and his lawyers is their inclusion of the Government Response to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee as an investigation that “investigated” and “exonerated” Mann personally. This takes the total of such misrepresented investigations to four (out of the four that I’ve thus far examined). In Mann’s pleadings, Mann additionally attributed findings of the Muir Russell Review to a separate investigation by the “government of the United Kingdom”, in turn, wildly inflating the supposed findings. As a secondary issue, Mann’s claim that this “investigation” was widely covered (or covered at all) in international media is also untrue, a point that Joe Romm complained about at the time.
http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/25/mann-misre...

Mann Misrepresents NOAA OIG

In today’s post, I’ll consider a fifth investigation – by the NOAA Office of the Inspector General OIG here- and show that, like the other four considered so far, Mann’s claims that it “investigated” and “exonerated” Mann himself were untrue. In addition, I’ll show that Mann’s pleadings misrepresented the findings of this investigation both through grossly selective quotation and mis-statement. Finally, the OIG report re-opened questions about Mann’s role in Eugene Wahl’s destruction of emails as requested by Phil Jones. In Mann’s pleadings, Mann claimed that each of the investigation reports was “commented upon in the national and international media”. But, in this case, much of the coverage focused on renewed criticism of the apparent obtuseness of the Penn State inquiry committee. The episode even included accusations of libel by Mann against CEI’s Chris Horner as well as a wild and unjustified accusation of “dishonesty” by Mann against myself.
http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/27/mann-misre...

"Where is the solid science that disproves global warming?"

Yeah... that there's an 'honest' question. Did you mean to ask about CAGW? And I love the caveat, "solid" science? It's obvious the only "science" you find "solid" is that which you already agree as the 'settled consensus'.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#44625 Mar 20, 2014
When combined with global warming from greenhouse gas emissions and other sources, El Niño events greatly increase the odds that a given year will set a new global temperature record, as occurred in 1998.

“The conditions of the Pacific ocean right now are as favorable for a major event as they were in march of 1997. That’s no major guarantee that a major event develops but clearly it would increase the likelihood of a major event occurring,”[Professoe Paul] Roundy says.
truth facts

Mount Orab, OH

#44626 Mar 20, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
When combined with global warming from greenhouse gas emissions and other sources, El Niño events greatly increase the odds that a given year will set a new global temperature record, as occurred in 1998.
“The conditions of the Pacific ocean right now are as favorable for a major event as they were in march of 1997. That’s no major guarantee that a major event develops but clearly it would increase the likelihood of a major event occurring,”[Professoe Paul] Roundy says.
That’s no major guarantee that a major event develops but clearly it would increase the likelihood of a major event occurring,That's what you wrote,right? There's no guarantee in anything.Like all the crap you put out about GW.There is no guarantee that it is accurate.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#44627 Mar 20, 2014
Starting in January of this year, there have been a series of strong bursts of winds coming out of the west in the equatorial tropical Pacific, and these have essentially replaced the typical easterly trade winds.

Partly as a result of these wind bursts, ocean buoys and satellites have detected the movement of unusually warm ocean waters from the western Pacific to the east. Ocean surface currents, which normally move westward across the Pacific basin, have reversed as well. El Niño forecasters have taken this as a further sign of a developing El Niño, and these conditions were a key reason why an El Niño Watch was issued on March 6.

Eric Blake, a hurricane specialist at NOAA’s National Hurricane Center in Miami, said conditions are changing rapidly in the Pacific, going from 50/50 odds of an El Niño, to a setup that eerily resembles the circumstances that preceded the monster El Niño of ‘97-'98.

“It’s something we haven’t really seen since the '97 El Niño,” Blake said of the westerly wind bursts and ocean observations. Instead of having trade winds blowing from the east at five to 10 mph, some locations in the western Pacific have had winds from the west blowing at up to 30 miles per hour, Blake says. This is important because it has ripple effects on the sea and below the sea surface.
litesong

Everett, WA

#44628 Mar 20, 2014
litesong wrote:
Often explained, & seldom understood by poorly science educated toxic topix AGW deniers.

AGW enhanced warm fronts have been forced into millions of square kilometers around the North Pole. Not one day of average temperature over those millions of square kilometers has been as low as normal temperatures for 4+months, & have been as high as 16degC(29degF) OVER normal temperatures. So much heat & energy is in the NP, that Arctic cold is driven very hard to the south. Without the time to disperse & warm, the Arctic cold(initially warmer than normal) blasts are setting record cold & snows in Canada & the U.S.
Sometimes, Arctic cold is driven even further south, to Mexico, Central America, southern China, India, Iran, Iraq, & Northern Africa, also setting record low temperatures.
//////////
denier duffed:
Don't you ever get tired.......
////////
litesong wrote:
No!
It is amazing how the AGW enhanced warm fronts are changing the Arctic, & how the AGW enhanced Arctic is affecting & changing the Northern Hemisphere.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#44629 Mar 20, 2014
litesong wrote:
Cuckoo, cuckoo.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#44630 Mar 20, 2014
Mothra wrote:
(continued from above 3/3)
Mann Misrepresents the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change
Next in the list of misrepresentations by Mann and his lawyers is their inclusion of the Government Response to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee as an investigation that “investigated” and “exonerated” Mann personally. This takes the total of such misrepresented investigations to four (out of the four that I’ve thus far examined). In Mann’s pleadings, Mann additionally attributed findings of the Muir Russell Review to a separate investigation by the “government of the United Kingdom”, in turn, wildly inflating the supposed findings. As a secondary issue, Mann’s claim that this “investigation” was widely covered (or covered at all) in international media is also untrue, a point that Joe Romm complained about at the time.
http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/25/mann-misre...
Mann Misrepresents NOAA OIG
In today’s post, I’ll consider a fifth investigation – by the NOAA Office of the Inspector General OIG here- and show that, like the other four considered so far, Mann’s claims that it “investigated” and “exonerated” Mann himself were untrue. In addition, I’ll show that Mann’s pleadings misrepresented the findings of this investigation both through grossly selective quotation and mis-statement. Finally, the OIG report re-opened questions about Mann’s role in Eugene Wahl’s destruction of emails as requested by Phil Jones. In Mann’s pleadings, Mann claimed that each of the investigation reports was “commented upon in the national and international media”. But, in this case, much of the coverage focused on renewed criticism of the apparent obtuseness of the Penn State inquiry committee. The episode even included accusations of libel by Mann against CEI’s Chris Horner as well as a wild and unjustified accusation of “dishonesty” by Mann against myself.
http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/27/mann-misre...
"Where is the solid science that disproves global warming?"
Yeah... that there's an 'honest' question. Did you mean to ask about CAGW? And I love the caveat, "solid" science? It's obvious the only "science" you find "solid" is that which you already agree as the 'settled consensus'.
To give credit to the cult of stupid, their members are persistent, like a dog with a bone. OK, a stupid bone. Gnawing at which for decades might seem obsessive. If not anal. But you can't day they don't have a kind of dogged determination.
litesong

Everett, WA

#44631 Mar 20, 2014
[QUOTE who="ratdownthemiddle ","middleofthedownwr onggully"]...man up and debate.
[/QUOTE]

Always have, but "ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" remains in its down wrong gully.

2010 Russian devastating summer heat & the massive floods of Pakistan, are connected due to the jet stream. Further connections between present cold & snow in central & eastern U.S., & excess energy AGW warmed North Polar regions are partially explained by the Polar Vortex jet stream. A more complete understanding is given, due to AGW enhanced warm fronts that have been forced into millions of square kilometers around the North Pole. Not one day of average temperature over those millions of square kilometers has been as low as normal temperatures for 4+months, & have been as high as 16degC(29degF) OVER normal temperatures.

Yes, as Russian hot & damaging temperatures have been connected via the jet stream to massive Pakistani floods, cold & snowy U.S. weather is connected to very warm AGW enhanced Arctic NP temperatures, also by the jet stream.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#44632 Mar 20, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
To give credit to the cult of stupid, their members are persistent, like a dog with a bone. OK, a stupid bone. Gnawing at which for decades might seem obsessive. If not anal. But you can't day they don't have a kind of dogged determination.
In the meantime, I hope MM takes good care of himself.

Have a nice day, people.

P.S. What's it like after the floods? Recovery underway.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-26642488

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#44633 Mar 20, 2014
truth facts wrote:
<quoted text> That’s no major guarantee that a major event develops but clearly it would increase the likelihood of a major event occurring,That's what you wrote,right? There's no guarantee in anything.Like all the crap you put out about GW.There is no guarantee that it is accurate.
Don't you guys get tired of repeating the same ole crap over n over. Like has been said many times before trying to prove any one extreme weather event to global warming is like asking when are my lotto numbers coming up. It's a pointless exercise, just as you can't guarantee throwing a few seeds on the ground won't automatically give you a corn crop. However if you condition the soil right with fertiliser etc and throw some water on it then for sure you will get a corn crop. Climate is exactly the same, man is sowing the seeds globally for extreme weather and the more we condition the physics for the likelihood for that to happen, then it will.
Learn to accept that reality instead of running off on tangents like mothballs & co who just make stupid statements as thou their efforts will stop the tidal wave of truth. After all could any of them answer the question of when "Jesus" / "Allah" / "Buddha" might appear next as final proof there is a God. I didn't think so!
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#44634 Mar 20, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
To give credit to the cult of stupid, their members are persistent, like a dog with a bone. OK, a stupid bone. Gnawing at which for decades might seem obsessive. If not anal. But you can't day they don't have a kind of dogged determination.
Demonstrating once again why zealots aren't worth the read.

Run along, skippy.
Hot coed babe

Corona Del Mar, CA

#44635 Mar 20, 2014
My global warming friends are now telling me that tracking will cause big earthquakes. Do I need to be scared? I don't know who to believe. My friends are quite serious.
==========

Environmentalists have been stoking fears that hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is causing earthquakes in California, but the evidence suggests otherwise.

The Los Angeles Times ran a piece on Tuesday titled “Did ‘fracking’ play role in L.A. earthquake? Councilmen want to know.” Los Angeles city council members want answers in the wake of an earthquake that rattled the city on Monday morning.

The liberal news site Mother Jones ran with the headline “Was the Los Angeles Earthquake Caused by Fracking Techniques?” The article notes that seismologists doubt fracking had anything to do with the LA quake, but environmentalists argue that fracking could be a culprit.

A report called “Shaky Ground” from Clean Water Action, Earthworks and the Center for Biological Diversity argues that the oil industry is increasing California’s earthquake risk by drilling close to active faults. The report finds that “more than half of the state’s permitted oil wastewater injection wells are located less than 10 miles from an active fault, and 87 of them, or about 6 percent, are located within a mile of an active fault,” writes Mother Jones.

Monday’s earthquake came from the northern edge of the Santa Monica Mountains, an area that doesn’t see much seismic activity, lending fuel to the flames for environmentalists who argue fracking will cause more earthquakes.

But the evidence shows that fracking has little to no influence on seismic activity in California. Fracking involves injecting sand, water and chemicals into underground shale formations to extract oil and gas. Fracking operations generally pressurize a small amount of rock for about two hours which causes extremely small microseismic events, but nothing close to earthquakes.

“The energy released by one of these tiny microseismic events is equivalent to the energy of a gallon of milk hitting the floor after falling off a kitchen counter,” said Stanford university Geophysicist Mark Zoback, who was an Obama administration Energy Department advisor.

“Needless to say, these events pose no danger to the public,” Zoback added.

A peer-reviewed 2012 study on fracking in the Inglewood Oil Field in Los Angeles County found that “the high-volume hydraulic fracturing and high-rate gravel packs had no detectable effects on vibration, and did not induce seismicity (earthquakes).”

The National Research Council, which is part of the National Academy of Sciences, also found last year that fracking poses a low risk for “inducing felt seismic events.”

“Shales have very low permeability that prevent these fluids from easily flowing into a well bore, and so wells may be drilled horizontally and hydraulically fractured to allow hydrocarbons to flow up the well bore,” the National Research Council wrote.“Hydraulic fracturing to date has been confirmed as the cause for small, felt seismic events at one location in the world. The process of hydraulic fracturing a well as presently implemented for shale gas recovery does not pose a high risk for inducing felt seismic events.”

“We also find that there is no evidence to suggest that hydraulic fracturing itself is the cause of the increased rate of earthquakes,” wrote David Hayes, deputy secretary of the Interior Department, in a 2012 report.

Even the LA Times and Mother Jones note that fracking is likely not the culprit behind California’s earthquake this week. U.S. Geological Survey seismologist Lucy Jones told the LA Times that,“[i]nduced earthquakes are almost always shallower than [Monday’s quake].”

Mother Jones also spoke to a spokesman for the agency overseeing the California Geological Survey, who said “that state seismologists don’t think that the injection well was close enough to make a difference.”
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#44636 Mar 20, 2014
truth facts wrote:
<quoted text> That’s no major guarantee that a major event develops but clearly it would increase the likelihood of a major event occurring,That's what you wrote,right? There's no guarantee in anything.Like all the crap you put out about GW.There is no guarantee that it is accurate.
Don't you get it? In the parlance of global warming "indicates", "suggests", "lends support to", and "may" mean "absolute", "proven", "confirms" and "verifies".

Just look at the headlines... and then the warminsts' interpretations.

But that should be no surprise... with their experience fudging data and conclusions, redefining words is only to be expected.
litesong

Everett, WA

#44638 Mar 20, 2014
litesong wrote:
2010 Russian devastating summer heat & the massive floods of Pakistan are connected due to the jet stream. Further connections of present cold & snow in central & eastern U.S., are are partially explained by the Polar Vortex jet stream, linking to over-warm AGW enhanced temperatures over millions of square kilometers around the North Pole. A more complete understanding is given, due to AGW enhanced warm fronts that have been forced into millions of square kilometers around the North Pole. Not one day of average temperature over those millions of square kilometers has been as low as normal temperatures for 4+months, & have been as high as 16degC(29degF) OVER normal temperatures. So much heat & energy are in the NP region, that the AGW enhanced warm fronts have forced cold Arctic air, south to Canada & the U.S. over many months & often, causing populated regions lots snowy & cold weather. The AGW enhanced warm fronts have so rapidly pushed Arctic cold to the south, that the warmer than normal cold never has time to disperse, & record Canadian & U.S. cold & snows have been on a conveyor belt, transferring from the Arctic.
Yes, as Russian hot & damaging temperatures have been connected via the jet stream to Pakistani floods, cold & snowy Canadian & U.S. weather is connected to very warm AGW enhanced Arctic NP temperatures, also by the jet stream.
/////////
denier denies & dumps a toilet full:
You're talking weather. This is climate.
//////////
litesong wrote:
I'm glad that you continue to stonewall, because you are a slimy steenking toxic topix AGW denier without science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra & pre-calc in a poorly (or non-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.

I ain't talkin' about the temperature at 2pm, 3-20-2014, on your backyard thermometer.

I've reported about multiple AGW enhanced Russian summer heats, their connections to Pakistani floods via the jet stream, & AGW enhanced Russian heats connected to over-heated AGW enhanced Arctic temperatures. Posted about over-warm AGW enhanced temperatures OVER MILLIONS OF SQUARE KILOMETERS around the North Pole, comparing recent decades to conditions over half a century ago & connected by a continuous line of Arctic temperature escalation over the period. Posted about those major AGW enhanced Arctic changes connecting with the jet stream & driven to Canada & the U.S., causing long time winter low temperatures & snow conditions. In other reports, I have talked about Arctic conditions forced even further south, setting cold temperature records in Mexico, Central America, southern China, India, Iran, Iraq, & Northern Africa.

Yeah, denier dumps a toilet full & pretends to not understand. Without science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra & pre-calc in a poorly (or non-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa, it doesn't understand.
litesong

Everett, WA

#44639 Mar 20, 2014
false farts wrote:
There is no guarantee that it is accurate.
It is guaranteed that the vast majority of slimy steenking toxic topix AGW deniers have no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc in poorly (or non-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaas. It is guaranteed that slimy steenking toxic topix AGW deniers will never have an explanation for energy enhanced AGW climate changes. slimy steenking toxic topix AGW deniers run in a fog. When bumping into AGW advocate posters, slimy steenking toxic topix AGW deniers run in other directions crying.... deny, deny, deny.

Meanwhile, enhanced AGW energies mount in Earth's biosphere at equivalent 355,000 to 400,000 hiroshima bombs per day & increasing.
denier

Zion, IL

#44640 Mar 20, 2014
litesong wrote:
litesong wrote:
2010 Russian devastating summer heat & the massive floods of Pakistan are connected due to the jet stream. Further connections of present cold & snow in central & eastern U.S., are are partially explained by the Polar Vortex jet stream, linking to over-warm AGW enhanced temperatures over millions of square kilometers around the North Pole. A more complete understanding is given, due to AGW enhanced warm fronts that have been forced into millions of square kilometers around the North Pole. Not one day of average temperature over those millions of square kilometers has been as low as normal temperatures for 4+months, & have been as high as 16degC(29degF) OVER normal temperatures. So much heat & energy are in the NP region, that the AGW enhanced warm fronts have forced cold Arctic air, south to Canada & the U.S. over many months & often, causing populated regions lots snowy & cold weather. The AGW enhanced warm fronts have so rapidly pushed Arctic cold to the south, that the warmer than normal cold never has time to disperse, & record Canadian & U.S. cold & snows have been on a conveyor belt, transferring from the Arctic.
Yes, as Russian hot & damaging temperatures have been connected via the jet stream to Pakistani floods, cold & snowy Canadian & U.S. weather is connected to very warm AGW enhanced Arctic NP temperatures, also by the jet stream.
/////////
denier denies & dumps a toilet full:
You're talking weather. This is climate.
//////////
litesong wrote:
I'm glad that you continue to stonewall, because you are a slimy steenking toxic topix AGW denier without science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra & pre-calc in a poorly (or non-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.
I ain't talkin' about the temperature at 2pm, 3-20-2014, on your backyard thermometer.
I've reported about multiple AGW enhanced Russian summer heats, their connections to Pakistani floods via the jet stream, & AGW enhanced Russian heats connected to over-heated AGW enhanced Arctic temperatures. Posted about over-warm AGW enhanced temperatures OVER MILLIONS OF SQUARE KILOMETERS around the North Pole, comparing recent decades to conditions over half a century ago & connected by a continuous line of Arctic temperature escalation over the period. Posted about those major AGW enhanced Arctic changes connecting with the jet stream & driven to Canada & the U.S., causing long time winter low temperatures & snow conditions. In other reports, I have talked about Arctic conditions forced even further south, setting cold temperature records in Mexico, Central America, southern China, India, Iran, Iraq, & Northern Africa.
Yeah, denier dumps a toilet full & pretends to not understand. Without science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra & pre-calc in a poorly (or non-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa, it doesn't understand.
Don't you realize you sound psychotic repeating the same sh!t over and over again at least spacecadet comes up with "new" info When people read your posts they think what's this guy on? You don't want that do you?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#44641 Mar 20, 2014
Mothra wrote:
(continued from above 3/3)
Mann Misrepresents the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change
Next in the list of misrepresentations by Mann and his lawyers is their inclusion of the Government Response to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee as an investigation that “investigated” and “exonerated” Mann personally. This takes the total of such misrepresented investigations to four (out of the four that I’ve thus far examined). In Mann’s pleadings, Mann additionally attributed findings of the Muir Russell Review to a separate investigation by the “government of the United Kingdom”, in turn, wildly inflating the supposed findings. As a secondary issue, Mann’s claim that this “investigation” was widely covered (or covered at all) in international media is also untrue, a point that Joe Romm complained about at the time.
http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/25/mann-misre...
Mann Misrepresents NOAA OIG
In today’s post, I’ll consider a fifth investigation – by the NOAA Office of the Inspector General OIG here- and show that, like the other four considered so far, Mann’s claims that it “investigated” and “exonerated” Mann himself were untrue. In addition, I’ll show that Mann’s pleadings misrepresented the findings of this investigation both through grossly selective quotation and mis-statement. Finally, the OIG report re-opened questions about Mann’s role in Eugene Wahl’s destruction of emails as requested by Phil Jones. In Mann’s pleadings, Mann claimed that each of the investigation reports was “commented upon in the national and international media”. But, in this case, much of the coverage focused on renewed criticism of the apparent obtuseness of the Penn State inquiry committee. The episode even included accusations of libel by Mann against CEI’s Chris Horner as well as a wild and unjustified accusation of “dishonesty” by Mann against myself.
http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/27/mann-misre...
"Where is the solid science that disproves global warming?"
Yeah... that there's an 'honest' question. Did you mean to ask about CAGW? And I love the caveat, "solid" science? It's obvious the only "science" you find "solid" is that which you already agree as the 'settled consensus'.
Where is the solid science? This is from the known denier Steve McIntyre who has no advanced degree and close ties with fossil fuel companies. He has time and time again tried to cast doubt on the so called Hockey Stick but has been largely unsuccessful. Cut and pasting denier blogs is not doing much for your bias. Just more from the doubt industry.

The Earth is warming. CO2 is a known GHG. Burning fossil fuels increases the CO2 in the atmosphere. Dispute those then you will have some traction. Rhetoric is not science.
Sam

United States

#44642 Mar 20, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>good luck with your flimsy theory, cuckoo.

if it's cold or hot anywhere on earth,
if it's flooding or there's a drought anywhere on earth,
if there's a hurricane, tornado....or the lack of them,
it is weather variability......like always!!!

none of it is proof or even increased evidence of agw.
your continued insistence that it somehow is linked to agw only proves how desperate and ridiculous your position has become.

you are a retarded joke.
Thanks for that blow job last night, lady.
Same time tonight?

At least you're not a birther?
That's the only thing more fkn retarded than a denier.

I'm sticking with the 95% of climatologists that agree global warming is man made. Sorry that I have a difficult time believing you inbred topix tea bag fkn morons over professionals.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min RoxLo 1,523,796
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 3 hr Go Trump 240,409
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 3 hr Resistance Works 105,140
A Little Ditty 5 hr Longfellow 1
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 6 hr TRD 71,285
A few ITEMS of interest. 8 hr Jocularity is Best 2
Look at Minn. Maine & Michigan. 9 hr EAT PORK 18

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages