Of course there will be a flurry of rebuttal, and some will no doubt cite East
Anglia University as if that decided the matter.From Environment
Canada: The fitted linear trend indicates that winter temperatures averaged
across the nation have warmed by 3.0°C over the past 67 years (a lot!).
The data are what they are.Now if we were to restrict ourselves to
the last 10 years, for example, we would likely get a downward sloping trend
line, hence claims that the climate is cooling over the last 10 years, but what
of the longer trend?Climate science involves a lot of statistics,
and sophistication with statistical technique. It is as difficult as
biostatistics and epidemiology. My experience is that climate change deniers do
not pay enough attention to proper statistical technique. Let the
United States industries have a long and shameful history of producing products
hazardous to the American populous. The list includes lead in paint
in gasoline and paint, asbestos insulation, cigarettes, cars without safety
belts, acid rain from coal burning etc. etc.Industry tries to
counter these threats with well funded denial based on bogus "science",
and threats of economic catastrophe, but eventually the facts play out and the
problems are taken care of through responsible legislation. Human
caused climate change is following the same pattern.
Perhaps the letter writer should check the nature of those who are promoting
global warming alarmism. Do they have a history of hiding data and methods? Are
they willing to debate the issue? Do their websites allow free discussion? Do
they try to find ways to "hide the decline" and dodge FOIA requests? Do
they alter their data in a way that enhances claims of warming? Do they invent
statistical methods that create warming trends from random data? Have any of
them seen a significant increase in personal wealth as a result of their
alarmism?He might also want to fact check the 97% number. The most
recent version of that number comes from a survey of scientific papers in which
97% of the papers did not explicitly oppose AGW. In fact, only 0.5% of the
papers take an explicit position supporting AGW. The same logic that is used for
the 97% number suggests that it would be just as accurate to say that 99.5% of
climate scientists DON'T agree with AGW. In reality, 0.5% of the papers
agree and 3% disagree, while the others take no position. The debate is far from
Sadly, some scientists have allowed their research to become political. Science
is not politics. Science is a demonstrable way of ferreting out truth.
Politics is a way to convince others of your point of view, and increasingly
plays fast and loose with truth.Britain has recently enacted a rule
that says its "equal time" provisions (that allow non-scientific and
unproven views air time on a par with known science and verifiable facts) be
voided for silly nonsense. The effect of this action is to limit the time of
creationists on television, climate deniers as well. There is no public good to
be associated with these ideas. Our country will never enact such a
rule for a variety of reasons. One is the freedom of speech. Any fool can
shout from the mountaintops that the earth is flat, and it is perfectly legal.
Our American problem with this right is that we have a lot of other fools who
believe the shouter that the earth is indeed flat. Our burden and our politics.
Oh the irony and hypocrisy of this letter, you are never supposed to doubt man
made climate change, like we can control the weather anyway. Just a way to
control us and take away our prosperity. If people were this hysterical before
would be living in horse and buggy days.
David, no one cares about your cause! UNTIL! It effects their personal world.
When all the deer and elk die the hunters will care. When all the fish die the
fishermen will care. When drinking water becomes a real commodity people will
begin to care. When all these things happen the finger pointing will begin and
the blame will be placed on those Liberals.It is sad that people
will not wake up till it is to late.
Look at the economics.When the federal government was concluding and
beginning to assertively declare that smoking is bad for human beings, there
were highly educated "experts" who took opposite opinions, publically.
Of course, they worked for the tobacco companies.Today most of the
scientists in the "climate change" camp are funded by government, which
implies they have an interest in proclaiming climate change, to keep the
government grant money coming. Except that with Sequestration, grant funding
has been cut.If these scientists were looking out for their own
individual economic interests, they would switch sides in droves, and be paid
handsomely by the oil companies.That's not happening. These
scientists are hanging on to a dwindling economic payout, for themselves.
Either they're not very bright, or they're telling the truth.
BIG Oil is just using the same thing BIG Tobacco did 50 years ago.They are using an old Defense Lawyer tactic -- Do not
"dis-prove" reality, only instill doubt.Then they single out
just one jury member, the one with the weakest mind, and emotion driven
over logic.That way, a 100% verdict can never be reached.
"When I check out a story that raises doubt about human-caused climate
change, I consistently find the source tied to an ideologically driven
organization focused on spreading doubt on the reality of what is
happening."Really?Then why didn't you note that
the "97% of scientists believe in man made global warming" is an easily
debinked figure that comes from a biased source?Climate change
exists (as it always has), but man made climate hysteria is the bigger problem
There's a new poll, just out, that alarmists can use freely to justify
curtailing the use of fossil fuel.600 delegates at the Heartland
Institute’s Ninth International Climate Change Conference were asked if
humans have influenced the climate. Remember, these are the "deniers" to
whom Folland's letter refers. 100% of them agreed that Man has some effect
on climate!Alarmists everywhere can now stop using the phony 97%
figure and now say: "One hundred percent of climate change deniers believe
that humans change climate".
It seems like the common thing to mention lately is that NOAA adjustment that
put July 1936 ahead of 2012. This was a result of a change in NOAAs dataset that
was used. For more information (this took me forever to find since
putting in things like "NOAA explains 2012 1936 year change" kept only
getting AGW skeptic sites railing against NOAA) one should look at NOAA's
March 12th article "Transitioning to a Gridded Climate Divisional
Dataset". So those claims that NOAA did this quietly are worthless,
it's not NOAAs fault that the things they post on their site don't
always get national coverage by the media. If you start playing with
the visualization tools there you'd find that the new dataset they're
using tends to increase the winter trend in temperatures, decrease the summer
trend (there's the July thing), and the overall annual trend is increased
by what I think is a statistically insignificant margin (so the idea that NOAA
made a hidden adjustment because they didn't want to show cooling is
incorrect too). 2012 remains the warmest year on record for the contiguous U.S.
A 49 degree day in the month of June for Salt Lake. We are just burning alive.
Well said Marxists. Though, I'm not sure a "controversy" exists at
all. Nearly the entire global population, scientists, climatologists, etc...
all have reviewed the data and agree. The only group not on board is,
predictably, American conservatives - which constitute a very small percentage
of the global community. These are the same people that opposed or currently
oppose freeing the slaves, interracial marriage, women's rights,
worker's rights, and SSM, among so many other things. So, at
what point do we simply admit that the only people who question anthropogenic
climate change are the people who have historically been wrong on every major
issue since our Nation's inception? At what point do we tell them openly
that their position literally has no merit and move forward without them? At this point, every day that we lag in taking proactive measures
imperils us all so we need to begin to treat the opinions of naysayers
appropriately by literally excluding them from the discussion. Their opinions
have no merit and thus they should no be afforded a seat at the table to find a
One thing about science is that it is always learning additional factors
previously undiscovered. This is what is happening with climate science. I hope
the 97% are overreacting but unfortunately you can't guarantee it.
"Preparation precedes power". I am afraid we will soon be forced to pull
our heads out, of the sand.
The vast petrochemical industry is feeding enormous amounts of misinformation to
the public on this issue. Of course, there's a lot of money at stake. Who
can make a buck off free solar energy?
@Pops"In fact, only 0.5% of the papers take an explicit position
supporting AGW. "For most papers in the field a statement
supporting or opposing AGW to be irrelevant to the subject of the paper at hand.
It would be faulty to say 99.5% of papers oppose AGW because the study
didn't say 97% of papers support AGW, just that 97% of papers that took a
position supported AGW (so it's not meant to be viewed as 97% of all
papers)." In reality, 0.5% of the papers agree and 3%
disagree"That's incorrect, since the 3% disagree is pulled
from 97-3 so you're comparing 1. the percentage of all papers that
say AGW is occurring (.5%) with 2. the percentage of papers, that take a
position, that say AGW isn't occurring (3%). It should be
either percentage of all papers for both, or percentage of papers that take a
position for both, not a mix of the two.
We almost have agreement on what caused the "little ice age" that
destroyed the Norse Settlements in Greenland and probable prevented them from
gaining a lasting foothold in Vinland. A volcanic eruption in Southeast Asia on
the ring of fire. Now we are told that the current cold snap in the Midwest is
caused because of the hurricane that hit Japan a few days ago. We cant control
the weather. But now the climatologists can predict the climate and tell us how
to change it years into the future. Climate has always changed. Hubris
is thinking mankind can now predict it let alone control it. Start
watching "when weather changed the world" on the weather channel. It is
more productive than debating Anthropogenic Climate Change.
Eat Butter is the cover story of a recent edition of Time magazine. Turns out
all the studies re the evils of fat and the scientific consensus regarding the
food pyramid were all wrong. Funny, I thought all that stuff was settled
science long ago. Guess some will have to recalibrate and adapt.Makes you wonder what they'll be saying about climate science in 50
years. I'm an advocate of moderation in all things and being a
thoughtful steward of the environment.I think you can take that
approach without having to buy in to all of the doomsday scenarios from
mathematical models that are heavy on assumptions that project current behavior
50 or more years into the future which ignores innovation (I suspect little that
we do today is identical to what was done 50 years ago).If in 50
years Time Magazine says climate science was all wrong, it won't change my
approach at all. I don't need science to convince me to be a thoughtful
steward.BTW, I'll continue to eat butter in moderation as
I've always done,
@liberal larry Do your drive a car? Live in a home with heating and Air
Conditioning? You obviously use a computer and use electricity, eat food taken
care of by Tractors and Combines with fuel. If so it is a bit hypocritical to
complain about what the US does when our country feeds the world with it's
technology and we live longer than we used too.
Tons of carbon a second does affect the environment. Next inversion lets all
light a bon fire to prove it is false or invite the coal rollers to all drive
down State street.
David, thank you for sharing your belief in the cult of global warming/climate
change.The problem with the "science" of global warming is
that it relies on manipulated data, guesses and lies and it is funded and
promoted by those who would benefit most by the policies that are proposed to
fight it. It is driven by profit and lust for power and is closely aligned with
the population-reductionist movement.I only hope that the global
warming believer foot-soldiers can come to see the truth before they are crushed
by the destructive policies they propose, right along with the rest of us. When
you hold the rank of "cannon fodder" your long-term prospects are grim,
no matter which side of the battle you join.
When it comes to global warming funding, pro or con, no one is innocent. You
have to look at whether the data are being represented and interpreted
objectively. In my considered opinion, an objective look at the data show that
there is no climate change going on.
I keep hearing that oil companies are spending bazillions of dollars to oppose
AGW, yet I don't know of anyone who is receiving any money from them. They
do spend a lot of money on ad campaigns, but those ads typically tend to portray
themselves as very green and claim that they're spending lots of money
looking into alternatives to oil. So where's the money? Who's getting
it? How much is it? My suspicion is that it's just a talking point that has
never been fact checked.The only person I know of who received a
large sum of (oil) money was Al Gore when he sold his network to Al Jazeera. And
what does he spend his money on? How about beach front property in San Francisco
and a private jet? Sounds like he doesn't really believe in AGW.Of course, the oil companies couldn't possibly match the $1 billion per
day that governments spend, and conveniently get in return a reason to raise
taxes. Conflict of interest perhaps?
The dnews giving a daily forum to the same folks who once argued that tobacco
smoking wasn't harmful to anyone's health. It was obvious that these
"think tanks" and writers were acting in their own selfishness, science
and facts be darned.Sadly, history has repeated itself and once
again the dnews positions itself on the wrong side of science and the good of
the American people. These very same propagandists are denying the existence of
man made global warming and/or telling us it's just too expensive to do
anything about it.This not only destroys the credibility of their
global denying, because all ya gotta do is look at their own history of denying
facts for money; but it also destroys the credibility of the dnews. Is the dnews
a legitimate news source or merely a propaganda machine for the corrupt and
greedy?I would expect much more from a church owned paper. A church which prides itself on being good stewards of the land and on telling
the truth shouldn't be giving any of these former tobacco smoke deniers any
space to spread propaganda in denying man caused global warming.
@marxist "...what of the longer trend?"Exactly. Look at
proxy data for the last 3000 years, and observe that we are currently below the
median temperature for that time period. It does put things into perspective.@Frozen Fractals "2012 remains the warmest year on record for the
contiguous U.S."This depends on which data you use. NOAA/USCRN
says July 2012 was a couple of degrees cooler than NOAA/NCDC says it was. USCRN
stations are all in rural settings, requiring no adjustments for urban heat. The
system cost taxpayers millions of dollars. Why don't we refer to it more?
The problem seems to be that it runs cooler than the "adjusted"
datasets. Therefore it must be ignored.@Stalwart SentinelI'd like to know where you got your correlation between AGW skeptics and
opposition to freeing the slaves. I think you made it up.@one
voteYou seem to be confusing particulates with carbon dioxide (a
colorless, odorless gas).
Re: Pops and oil companies contributing money to climate change deniers I have
from Wikipedia:Oil and gas companies have contributed to the
Heartland Institute, including over $600,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and
2005. Greenpeace reported that Heartland received almost $800,000 from
ExxonMobil. In 2008, ExxonMobil said that they would stop funding to groups
skeptical of climate warming, including Heartland. Joseph Bast,
president of the Heartland Institute, argued that ExxonMobil was simply
distancing itself from Heartland out of concern for its public image.
@Anti Bush-Obama"A 49 degree day in the month of June for Salt Lake.
We are just burning alive."June was the first month this year
that was below average (by around a quarter of a degree). February was over half
a dozen degrees above average and March was 5 degrees above average. @Nate[@Frozen Fractals "2012 remains the warmest year on record for
the contiguous U.S."This depends on which data you use.
NOAA/USCRN says July 2012 was a couple of degrees cooler than NOAA/NCDC says it
was. ]It doesn't, because I said year, while you're
referring to warmest month where there is a difference. The year rankings
didn't change much since the new dataset made the warming trend smaller in
the summer but it made the warming trend larger in the winter, so the overall
change from one dataset to the other was small when looking at years.
@Pops"In fact, only 0.5% of the papers take an explicit position
supporting AGW. "[Proving the DN is once again on the wring side
of history.]======@Anti Bush-Obama"A 49 degree
day in the month of June for Salt Lake. We are just burning alive."Gee -- ONE day in Salt Lake City in June most certainly blows to doors off of
150 years of Scientifically recording temperatures - Daily - GLOBALLY.Gotta hand it, I wish everything could be just that simple...
Some more useful data:Ground temperature data is notoriously
unreliable because of bias from surrounding heat sources. Ten years ago NOAA
decided to fix that and built the world gold standard surface temperature
monitoring network for the USA. They just published their first data for
2005-2014 and it shows a slight cooling trend. If you prefer satellite data for
global temperature measurement the RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming
at all for 213 months from August 1996 to April 2014. Yes, this is a relatively
small period of time, but not a single model promulgated by climate scientists
has predicted this real, measured temperature trend.
I guess I'm a hypocrite to be concerned with the way we have and are
treating our planet. I'll admit it. Now what is higv going to admit about
himself because he believes what he wants to believe and no science will get in
the way of that. Heaven help us if we took rational steps to nurture Mother
Actually, the exact opposite is true. The ideologues are those proclaiming
global warming when, in fact, it is not occurring. Nasa just revised their
temperature data downward, sea levels are NOT rising, crop yields are
increasing, tree and plant growth in the wild is also increasing. The emperor is
not wearing any clothes, as the old fable goes, and global warming is not
occurring. Data, when left unmanipulated, bear that fact out.
Just give us the raw, unmanipulated data from unmanipulated stations. We'll
then be able to determine the truth for ourselves. As it is, every NOAA/USCRN,
NOAA/NCDC and every other reporting organization manipulates the raw data for
some real or imagined variables. I just want the raw data from accurate,
realistic measurements. Can we get that, please?
From the UN IPCC 5th Assessment Report Summary for Policy Makers (SPM):“the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05
[–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El
Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12
[0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)” (Pg. 5).Oops! We were
supposed to have warmed…the IPCC told us in both their 3rd and 4th
assessment reports going back to 2001. Riddle me this: how come temperatures
didn’t rise during 1998-2012, when atmospheric CO2 was rising? The
Warmers and their pseudo scientists have consistently proclaimed that increases
in CO2 would always result in increased warming.“Continental-scale surface temperature reconstructions show, with high
confidence,multi-decadal intervals during the Medieval Climate Anomaly
(950-1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the late 20th century”
(Pg. 5).Wow, I had no idea evil corporations like oil companies
existed in Medieval times…color me surprised! I’m trying to square
this little nugget with the IPCC’s hockey stick chart that was in both the
3rd and 4th Assessment Reports…hmmm?
"Then why didn't you note that the "97% of scientists believe in
man made global warming" is an easily debinked figure that comes from a
biased source?"I keep hearing this, but never have seen any
documentation from a reliable source that "easily debunks" the the claim
that the 97% figure can be easily debunked.If it really can be
debunked, please debunk it.
@Sven"how come temperatures didn’t rise during 1998-2012, when
atmospheric CO2 was rising?"As noted that period starts with a
very strong El Nino. It ended with mostly La Nina years (2010 was El Nino). So
that's a natural influence against warming in that shorter period (30yrs is
the standard climate norm). That period also ends with the weakest solar cycle
in a century a negative forcing climate models don't predict. What you
quoted notes a statistically insignificant warming in that period
(1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) despite the
natural forcings pointed towards cooling. Is it not possible that during that 15
year span that there was an anthropogenic component that was positive but that a
negative natural component was of similar magnitude and thus we were left with
no net warming?@Longfellow"Ground temperature data is
notoriously unreliable because of bias from surrounding heat sources."All the ground temp datasets (NOAA/NASA/CRU) are between the satellite
datasets RSS and UAH for satellite era temperature trend. If they were totally
unreliable they'd be outliers.
To "Frozen Fractals" so then you agree that the models being used to
predict warming are junk. Just like the NOAA has said when they said that the
models predict it is impossible to have more than 15 years without warming.Knowing that the models are junk, what are you going to do? Do you
trust scientists that make predictions based on bad models that couldn't
predict a strong El Nino followed by La Nina and couldn't account for solar
output? What other natural climate events can't their models predict?
Climate change is a scientific fact, and no amount of ideolgical opposition can