Check out this spectacular fraud from the Climate Inquisition
Steve Goddard
Goddard is the pseudonym of climate denialist Tony Heller, who has been active in the anti-global warming action campaign since 2008. Heller has degrees in geology and electrical engineering. He currently runs the blog Real Science, where he comments on climate research and political news. He has called it “a massive lie” that 97 percent of climate scientists agree the world is warming. He also maintains that U.S. and global temperature records have been tampered with, rendering global warming projections inaccurate.
Leaked Email Reveals Who’s Who List of Climate Denialists | InsideClimate News
If you follow their link, I said nothing of the sort. I was discussing attribution for the observed warming, not whether or not the Earth was warming.
The claims of 97% consensus are a massive lie. Only 52% of American Meteorological Society members believe that man is the primary contributor to global warming.
My comment explicitly assumes that the Earth is warming. You can’t have attribution for something which isn’t happening.
These people are unable to engage in honest debate. They are criminals pushing an agenda.
Well, a who’s who list, (but not a complete list) of honorable people. Hopefully, the list will keep growing. As some of us are doing, this presents a good list to support and to help grow.
Maybe, who knows, some day, some of us will be honored by being on the list in some way.
Woo hoo! I finally got on a Who’s Who list alongside whoever Steve Goddard is! At least InsideClimate was dumb enough to link straight to my GelbspanFiles blog. The only thing I’ve gotten from SourceWatch over this leaked email situation so far is a blank page. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Russell_Cook
Darn, I ain’t on that list!
It’s an “A-List” for sure!
Steve should be honored to be on it.
If you are getting flak, you are over the target!
An email from DR Singer asking for advice in suing for damages is proof of what? Damages?
It’s proof that these idiots don’t have a leg to stand on and are just trying to sling crap and hope that some of it might stick.
Heller has degrees in geology and electrical engineering.
Far more impressive than diplomas in basket-weaving and crystal astrology.
Seems we’ve come to the same conclusion!
What?! A degree in Cartoonology or Pseudojournalism is not comparable?
What about a degree in teaching English and the guy can’t even write a decent sentence?
What does Al Gore have a degree in? BIG Government?
Not to mention yoghurt weaving!
Or climate astrology.
I had no idea that you denied the fact that there is a climate.
+1
I find it even more absurd when they claim that “the science” is on their side. No, the rigged system, which is avoiding science at every turn, and vandalizing the historical climate record, is the side they’re on.
They do not have it quite correct, from their ‘real skeptics’ partners –
Our results are also consistent with previous research finding a 97% consensus amongst climate experts on the human cause of global warming. Doran and Zimmerman (2009) surveyed Earth scientists, and found that of the 77 scientists responding to their survey who are actively publishing climate science research, 75 (97.4%) agreed that “human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.” Anderegg et al. (2010) compiled a list of 908 researchers with at least 20 peer-reviewed climate publications. They found that:
“≈97% of self-identified actively publishing climate scientists agree with the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change]”
http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html
To really get 97% you have to add – 97% of self-identified actively publishing climate science research. and not just – “97 percent of climate scientists”
Are they talking about Big Algor here -“have financial ties to the tobacco, chemical, and oil and gas industries and have worked to defend them since the 1990s. ”
Four years after she died, while campaigning for President in North Carolina, he boasted of his experiences in the tobacco fields and curing barns of his native Tennessee. – http://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/30/us/gore-forced-to-make-hard-choices-on-tobacco.html The NEW YORK TIMES???
“Throughout the whole of his life, Al Gore Sr. and his family depended on pay-outs, kickbacks and subventions from [Armand] Hammer,” wrote Neil Lyndon, who worked for Hammer. “Like his father before him, Al Gore Jr.’s political career was lavishly sponsored by Hammer from the moment it began until Hammer died, only two years before Gore Clinton in the 1992 race for the White House.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2000/02/1547/#Gcu0dMbzMQiymsrB.99
And didn’t he sell some TV thing to the Oil Sheiks?
I wonder how that lawsuit Al’s got going against the buyers of “Non”-Currant TV? Quite amusing with a multimillionaire hypocrite suing because he didn’t get all his 100+ Million. Al’s just a man of the people with a too-tight chakra.
What annoys them most is that they put in all the effort to create these helpful list of sceptics (many I’ve never heard but they sound worth reading if I can).
And we sceptics never return the courtesy. I started doing it once. It was
Mr Nasty … media studies
Ms Vile … media and asian studies
A.N.Other … marketing from nowhereton
Meanwhile a cop hunt is under way in Ferguson, thanks to Eric Holder..
The Reverend @Kelemchrist
Follow
#ChiefJackson steps down and two pigs get shot? Best day #Ferguson has had in years
Lifeless @hastavilla
Follow
im glad 2 pigs wounded in #Ferguson lol
Lifeless @hastavilla
Follow
#Ferguson kill the pigs
Isíldúr Jones @emptymindedejit
Follow
serves those two pigs right, i hope organized public militancy continues #ferguson
Edward
@ejc8713
It’s time for the ppl to finally fight back against these racist ass pigs! #Ferguson #truth #tcot
Reply Retweet Favorite
More
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_4I5gdUYAEBgyD.jpg:large
Rage Against Tyranny @NoMoreGulags
Follow
FERGUSON PIG-SHOOT;
Finally, somebody speaks the only language
the Gestapo pigs understand!
GOOD WORK!
OPERATION NATION @OperationNation
Follow
#Ferguson pigs shouldnt grab ppl; thugs deserved it. Wish it was #DarrenWilson. Sound familiar? #MichaelBrown #VonderittMyers #AntonioMartin
┗╋┓ @TOONASTYGAWD
Follow
“@stopbeingfamous: At least 2 Ferguson police officers have been shot, 1 in the face, according to news reports.” FUCK 12 SLAY THEM PIGS
#LONGLIVEWENGER @StayBlessedKid
Follow
Racist cops shot not gonna cry 4 pigs #Ferguson
Cheyo @CheyosWorld
Follow
Ferguson pigs getting shot… 👏
Rage Against Tyranny @NoMoreGulags
Follow
FERGUSON!
SHOTS FIRED, PORKCHOPS DOWN!
Payback’s a bitch, ain’t it Gestapo pigs!?
Hahahahaha!
Mr. Solo Dolo @Bob_Loblaw420
Follow
Hunting pigs RT @zerohedge: Two Police Officers Shot Outside Ferguson Police Department: Shooting Caught On Tape http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-12/two-police-officers-shot-outside-ferguson-police-department-shooting-caught-tape …
Josi @joselleaq
Follow
After what the Ferguson Police Dep has done does anyone REAAALLY care that three pigs were shot? #NoLOL
The Offender @offensivehour
Follow
I heard two pigs in #Ferguson got shot? We’re they left on the ground bleeding out and dead like Mike Brown?
☥W3PW4w3t☥ @Anarch_Z
Follow
@AP @AnonRastaFTP yeah sorry can’t feel bad about pigs getting shot. #FTP #ACAB #Ferguson
mike sawyer @riseupagain33
Follow
hopefully they’ll be off the street for a long time. two less pigs out harassing & kidnapping people. #Ferguson
2:45 AM – 12 Mar 2015
FUCK SAE OU @StylistSunshine
Follow
Fuck the police nobody shot those pigs in #Ferguson they did that themselves! Inside job!
All this hate, nonsense and attempted murder because Officer Darren Wilson shot and killed a criminal who was an imminent threat to his life.
As I said the Progressives are priming the blacks for massive rioting. The coal plant close downs/ rolling blackouts/power outages will set off the powder keg of the hatred and envy ESPECIALLY if the smart meters are used to cut power to homes while other power is NOT cut. (Sure sounds like discrimination to me.) Add in power bills like my mechanic just got $700/feb) and everyone is going to be irritated. Why the heck do you think Obummer is arming all the departments under his command?
Why the Hell is the Department of Agriculture Buying Submachine Guns?
1.6 Billion Rounds Of Ammo For Homeland Security? It’s Time For A National Conversation
US Postal Service Joins DHS, Social Security Admin, NOAA in Ammo Purchases
The entire Ferguson PD should have turned in their badges, locked the doors to the station, and wished Ferguson residents good luck. I know I would have.
What happened to the man that marched with the protestors, Capt. Ron Johnson of the MO Highway Patrol? I thought he was going to stop the violence? (MSM portrayal)
Apparently he is also unaware of the FBI stats on black crime.
Ever wonder how this grew out of a simple case of law enforcement?
Washington Times: George Soros Funded Ferguson Protests
Progressive billionaire George Soros has played a critical role in financing the Ferguson, Missouri, protest movement, giving at least $33 million in one year to back already established groups that “emboldened” on-the-ground activists there, The Washington Times reports.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/george-soros-funded-ferguson-protests/2015/01/15/id/618934/
Gail see comment – https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/03/12/it-has-been-15-years-since-global-warming-destroyed-the-planet/#comment-501695
Would that be the same World Bank and IMF that has a 4 step plan for any nation to be taken over and stripped of assets.
Step One is Privatization – Step Two Capital Market Liberalization. – Step Three: Market-Based Pricing w/ Step-Three-and-a-Half: what Stiglitz calls, “The IMF riot.” – Step Four of what the IMF and World Bank call their “poverty reduction strategy”.
From an interview and documents of Joseph Stiglitz former Chief Economist of the World Bank.
http://www.gregpalast.com/the-globalizer-who-came-in-from-the-cold/
or search – Greg Palast secret documents IMF’s and World Bank
Was reported back in the late 1990’s, with examples from then, but latest news is the same steps. The “Poverty Reduction” is the sale off of the countries assets in exchange for the worthless IOU bonds.
Thanks, I will take a good look at that later tonite when I have a bit more time.
The IMF and World Bank were the brainchild of a KGB spy in the US treasury and a UK Fabian at the Fabian founded London School of Economics. Not exactly the best recommendation.
Both were always about sucking up wealth from the poor and middle class while grabbing as much power as possible. I often us this as a reference: Structural Adjustment Policies
Billionaire Peter Thiel on climate ‘science’ (2:25 mark)…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoxxGhLFbw4
Peter Andreas Thiel (born October 11, 1967) is an American entrepreneur, venture capitalist, and hedge fund manager. Thiel co-founded PayPal with Max Levchin and Elon Musk and served as its CEO. He also co-founded Palantir, of which he is chairman. Thiel serves as president of Clarium Capital, a global macro hedge fund with $700 million in assets under management; a managing partner in Founders Fund, a venture capital fund with $2 billion in assets under management; co-founder and investment committee chair of Mithril Capital Management; and co-founder and chairman of Valar Ventures. He was the first outside investor in Facebook, the popular social-networking site, with a 10.2% stake acquired in 2004 for $500,000, and sits on the company’s board of directors.
Thiel was ranked #293 on the Forbes 400 in 2011, with a net worth of $1.5 billion as of March 2012. He was ranked #4 on the Forbes Midas List of 2014 at $2.2 billion. Thiel lives in San Francisco, California.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel
Oh my, he will be come a target like the Koch brothers.
This is all about destruction of political opponents.
Y’all must realize that the truth, and scientific facts will never win this struggle.
There must be an overwhelming case of fraud, deception, and worse.
Time to “shrug”.
They are all lathered up about a series of messages discussing how to respond to the public attacks against Dr. Singer, that were publicly posted to a website after they occurred.
Meanwhile, they are not at all concerned about secret e-mails discussing how to skew peer review, requests that the co-conspirators all agree to purge potentially incriminating e-mails from each other, etc, uncovered by the release of the Climate-gate e-mails.
I left out secret strategizing on how to ignore FOIA requests for data that are legally required to be made available, and how best to conspire to bury/ignore scientific papers found to be of merit after peer review that undermined their cause.
Fascinating in their hypocrisy, isn’t it?
The end justifies the means to many of the fraudsters.
“He has called it “a massive lie” that 97 percent of climate scientists agree the world is warming” Article
“If you follow their link, I said nothing of the sort.
The claims of 97% consensus are a massive lie.” Steve/Tony
?????
“He has called it “a massive lie” … I said nothing of the sort. I called it a massive lie.
Help me out – what am I missing here?
“Is it warming” is a very different question than “is mankind primarily responsible for warming”.
The Senate just voted unanimously that climate change is real, without specifying anything about whether the climate is changing primarily from natural causes or is human-induced. You’re alleging that Steve has disputed that the climate changes, which is an obvious lie on your part.
Thanks for your reply, but “is mankind primarily responsible for warming” does not appear in the article
““He has called it “a massive lie” that 97 percent of climate scientists agree the world is warming” Article
“If you follow their link, I said nothing of the sort.
The claims of 97% consensus are a massive lie.”
Steve clearly called 97% consensus a “massive lie”,
“You’re alleging that Steve has disputed that the climate changes, which is an obvious lie on your part.”
Not at all. I say that nowhere.
I am claiming this article is bunk: Steve admits to your face that HE DID SAY what he claims he never said:
” I said nothing of the sort.
The claims of 97% consensus are a massive lie.””
And I wondered if any of you notice this?
Yes, we noticed that the authors committed a ‘lie of omission’
Also known as a continuing misrepresentation, a lie by omission occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Omission
It is a common tactic of the left. Whole lies out of half truths.
Hope asked what she was missing. How about …
“Only 52% of American Meteorological Society members believe that man is the primary contributor to global warming.”
I am sure Hope has missed a lot more than that, but I don’t have the rest of my life to clue her in. Hats off to those of you who have more patience than I.
Although you are being obtuse, I’ll hold your hand.
The 97% consensus is well-known to refer to the discredited paper published by Cook.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf/1748-9326_8_2_024024.pdf
That study has been refuted by a more recent peer reviewed paper, which found that using the standard definition of athropogenic climate change used by the IPCC, the actual level of consensus was only 0.3%.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9
To further support his statement that the discredit claims of 97% consensus are a “massive lie”, Steven referred to yet another data source that found “only 52% of American Meteorological Society members believe that man is the primary contributor to global warming.”
The original data were misinterpreted and their interpretation has been refuted by a later peer reviewed study. There is no other study that has replicated their original claims. Yet this supposed 97% consensus is one of the most often repeated statements used to debate the issue. Anyone who continues to quote such a flawed study in the face of peer reviewed rebuttals and contradictory findings is telling a “massive lie”, just as Steve said.
Lawyers are wonderful at lies of omission Hope. Mr. President of Hope/Change is a master.
Hope springs eternal.
Or something like that.
Rerminds me of HotWhopper’s obsession with Anthony Watts.
“And I wondered if any of you notice this?”
Only thing I’ve noticed is your extreme ineptitude at discerning the difference between two statements.
Strawman arguments are a classic symptom of alarmists; not being able to recognise when they’re actually doing it (or just ignoring that they are) is one that follows.
Hope,
At this point in time, it would easy to be to dismiss you as a stubborn troll. However, I am going to proceed with the assumption that you are not aware of — or do not comprehend — what is meant by the phrase the “97% consensus” in global warming discussions. There was a Zimmerman/Doran survey and a Cook survey which claimed that 97% of scientists agree that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the major or significant source of global warming with the connotation that this warming is dangerous. These surveys have been thoroughly debunked and have been a source of embarrassment to the universities where the surveys originated. So when the 97% consensus is referenced, “everyone knows” that these surveys are being referenced. Meanwhile, it would be a absurd statement to claim that 97% of climate scientists agree that the earth is warming because 100% of climate scientists would agree that the earth warmed from the 1970s to the end of the 20th century. Meanwhile is very possible that only half of scientists would say that the earth has warmed in the last 18 years — although I am not aware of any study (biased or unbiased) that has asked that question. It is a gross distortion (a lie) to say that Goddard calls it “a massive lie that 97 percent of climate scientists agree the world is warming.” The massive lie is that there is a 97% consensus that human emissions are the primary or significant factor in earth’s warming.
A bit thick, aren’t you?
That’s to Hope!!
Hope says:
March 12, 2015 at 5:30 pm
Help me out – what am I missing here?
A brain.
Actualy, Hope, we’re perhaps being a bit unfair on you!
I have actually heard many otherwise intelligent and knowledgeable people confuse the fact that the planet has warmed up since the Little Ice Age, with the claim that it is all or mostly man made.
They then go on to assume that the little bit of warming we have had will somehow turn into catastrophic warming in future.
Yes, maybe Hope wasn’t one of the brainless joiners who signed this petition…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw
But her peers certainly did! 😆
I myself am not confused on greenhouse gas effects.
Then you understand that increasing CO2 and warming do not have a linear relationship?
Great!
The claim in the article is a flagrant lie. I didn’t make any claim about whether or not scientists said it was warming.
My claim was what the scientists attribute the warming to.
Wow – Steve – you are sticking by this?
““He has called it “a massive lie” that 97 percent of climate scientists agree the world is warming” Article
“If you follow their link, I said nothing of the sort.
The claims of 97% consensus are a massive lie.”
You clearly said what the article says you said.
You stick by the notion that these two sentences don’t say the same thing …
…. and to imagine they do is dishonest whichhunt:
“He has called it “a massive lie” that 97 percent of climate scientists agree the world is warming” article
“The claims of 97% consensus are a massive lie.” you
What is the difference between the two sentences?
The distinction may be easy to miss. This is the “massive lie”: 97% of climate scientists agree that human-emitted gases are the key reason for increases in global temperatures.
This is the accusation against Goddard: He calls it a massive lie that 97% of scientists say that the earth is warming.
It is well established that the claim of 97% consensus on human-emitted gases as the key reason for increases in global temperatures is bunk. However, most likely Goddard would agree (and close to 100% of climate scientists) with this statement: The global mean temperature rose from the 1970s to the end of the 20th century.
“The distinction may be easy to miss”
Particularly to a brain-washed ditz from the trailer park.
You again prove that your thinking and comprehension ability is Hopeless.
Is it going to take 100 posts, again, for you to understand ?
@Aninquirer:
” He calls it a massive lie that 97% of scientists say that the earth is warming.”
I read it that attributing this sentence to him is dishonest:
“I said nothing of the sort.”
But in fact that is exactly what he said: “The claims of 97% consensus are a massive lie.”
.. and in fact the article’s description:
“He calls it a massive lie that 97% of scientists say that the earth is warming.”
Is correct.
Oh FFS, learn to read, you moronic idiot !!
He did NOT call it a lie that 97% of climate scientists agree the world is warming.
The consensus LIE is about the CAUSE of the natural, and very beneficial warming, since the LIA. The CONSENSUS that is is cause by CO2 is a LIE, a FABRICATION.
Do… you…. Understand? you dimwitted, brain-washed twerp !!
‘AndyG55 says:
March 12, 2015 at 10:13 pm
Oh FFS, learn to read, you moronic idiot !!
He did NOT call it a lie that 97% of climate scientists agree the world is warming.”
___________________________
It’s just really not that hard to see:
“He has called it “a massive lie” that 97 percent of climate scientists agree the world is warming” Article
.. then claims he said nothing of the sort and cites this sentence as what he actually said:
“The claims of 97% consensus are a massive lie.”
CAN YOU (I know you have to included insults as you can not answer in any other way, so go ahead)
TELL IS the difference BETWEEN these TWO sentences??
__________________________________________________________
“He has called it “a massive lie” that 97 percent of climate scientists agree the world is warming”
“The claims of 97% consensus are a massive lie.”
____________________________________________________________
WHAT is the difference in meaning in these two sentences?
The difference dummy, is that Tony went on to explain that sentence, and the a-hole liars that cherry picked one sentence out of a paragraph did not bother to tell the whole truth.
It is a lie of omission. And a lie is a lie.
Again, we see Hopeski defending liars, looks great on your resume sweety! 😆
You never have answered my question. Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this legal document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
It is a simple yes or no.b Or is that above you mental capacity?
What up B! 😆
Can’t answer a simple yes or no? 😆
Fraud! 😆
Hope also failed basic English at junior high level.
Totally unable to comprehend even the most simple wording.
You truly are proving to be unbelievable DUMB and SIMPLE !!!
and totally HOPELESS !!
“I know you have to included insults as you can not answer in any other way, so go ahead”
I HAVE answered it, you are just too dumb to comprehend or being wilfully ignorant.
As NO-ONE can be so dumb that they cannot understand the difference, it is obvious that you are choosing to be wilfully ignorant. or maybe, against all possible rationality…
YOU REALLY ARE THAT DUMB !!!. !
I repeat, for the HOPELESS idiot..
The FAKE consensus is about the CAUSE of the slight warming since the LIA,
NOT about the warming itself.
How much simpler an explanation do you need ?
Do you have the basic comprehension ability to understand that?
I doubt it very much !! You have shown you are as thick as 10 bricks !!
Andy, if you really want to talk to Hopless, you need to be on this thread…
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/03/11/hope-and-choom/#comment-502248
I’ll leave the Lipsink fraud guy to you, thanks. 🙂
Not my neck of the woods.
If the dope ever wants to discuss real science, I will be more than happy to try to shut her ignorant yabbering 🙂
The lie of omission is the difference. Taking a statement without giving the full context.
Actually Hope “the world is warming” is a big lie depending on your starting point.
Last 65 million years
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/65_Myr_Climate_Change_Rev.jpg
Last 5 million years
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/Five_Myr_Climate_Change_Rev.jpg
Last 10,000 years (Greenland Ice Core)
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
Last 12,000 years (Vostok Ice Core)
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/vostok-last-12000-years-web.gif
Last 18 years
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/clip_image002_thumb.png
As was noted Steve is trained as a geologist and would be well aware that the earth is gradually cooling.
You made the list! Congratulations! Obviously, you have hit more than a few nerves to have been so distinguishtly honored!
Breaking news from InsideClimate News!
U.S. MARINE ASSAULTS AFRICAN IMMIGRANT AND STEALS HIS LUNCH!
https://thescoundrel.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/u-s-marine-assaults-african-immigrant-and-steals-his-lunch/
In an interview with the BBC, the president of Natl Academy Science, when asked if it would lead to catastrophe, answered, “There is NO EVIDENCE for that”. They do not want to talk about it.
Where is the consensus that it will be catastrophic? Otherwise, its just weather. They are trying to smear by connecting skeptics to fossil fuels, so people will be prejudiced against skeptics before they read skeptic blogs, since many will want to check out blogs, like this one. Just like our guest keep yelling “fossil fuel propaganda” when frustrated by facts. They are getting desperate, so the lies and smears will ramp up.
They are, unwitting, sending people to check out those blogs. I noticed they left out Michaels connection to MIT. “1000 Scientists Dispute Global Warming” shows there are a lot more, including Nobel winners, that are being hid from the public.
I’m waiting for the 30,000+ scientists on the Oregon Petition to be targeted. Or would that be counterproductive for their lesser army of idiots.
I lost the link, but one of the IPCC scientists noted that the number of scientists contributing has gone down from 1000s (8000?) to hundreds (400?) as more and more scientist leave in disgust as their work is rewritten to conform to the The Summary for Policymakers (SPM)
The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is agreed to “line by line” by politicians and/or representatives of politicians, and it is then published. After that the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports are amended to agree with the SPM. This became IPCC custom and practice when prior to its Second Report the then IPCC Chairman, John Houghton, decreed, “We can rely on the Authors to ensure the Report agrees with the Summary. “ This was done and has been the normal IPCC procedure since then.
Not many scientists will be willing to have their work twisted to have an opposite meaning. And more than one stormed off in a huff.
In fact, All 9K studies the AR-5 is based on remain valid:
“assess, evaluate and synthesise the findings of 9,200 peer-reviewed scientific studies published since the last review in 2007”
http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/09/co2-reshaping-the-planet-meta-analysis-confirms/
In fact the stringent agreement policy makes the ar-5 more conservative, not less:
“PCC’s reports, they say, often underestimate the severity of global warming, in a way that may actually confuse policymakers (or worse). The IPCC, one scientific group charged last year, has a tendency to “err on the side of least drama.” And now, in a new study just out in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, another group of researchers echoes that point. In scientific parlance, they charge that the IPCC is focused on avoiding what are called “type 1” errors — claiming something is happening when it really is not (a “false positive”) — rather than on avoiding “type 2” errors — not claiming something is happening when it really is (a “false negative”).”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/30/climate-scientists-arent-too-alarmist-theyre-too-conservative/
I never knew science was a drama. Do tell. 😆
“The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful.”
– Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University
The best thing one can do is do their own analysis and see if it matches the predictions. That is the beauty of science. Discuss the data and conclusions. Sharyl attkinson had a great Ted talks about astroturfing and the first sign is attacking the person or funding rather than the data.
“evaluate and synthesise the findings of 9,200 peer-reviewed scientific studies ”
Choosing ONLY those that reinforce the global warming farce..
Ignoring any that cast an opposite view.
With WWF, and Greenpeace, and agenda approval, of course.
They try to dismiss anybody who is not a climate scientist when, in fact, there are dozens of different science disciplines that come under the banner of climate science, like geology, mathmatics, statistics, solar, atmosphere, heat transfer, radiation and many others. Any one person can only be an expert in 2-3 of these fields. A climate scientist has to rely on a lot of others. IF they were looking for the truth, they would welcome skeptics to find the flaws, which is the first step in seeking truth. Disturbing that Jones remarked, “Why should I give them my work when all they are going to do is find flaws in it?” Very anti-science.
If we applied the same to them, then there are a bunch who aren’t in any of these. A skeptical astrophysicist is bad but the same supporting AGW is good. An English major is a climate scientist who can contort data and its all good. They must avoid discussing the data and focus the smear. No debates allowed, too risky.
I expect it is just a careless mistake by them. I have told them about it so I expect they will correct it promptly.
Well, I was wrong. I’m shocked and amazed. They ignored my email and tweets and haven’t corrected the article. You were right. They are liars.
Well, I was wrong. I’m shocked and amazed. They ignored my email and tweets and haven’t corrected the article.
FYI – You left off the sarc tag.
Hope Quotes, “PCC’s reports, they say, often underestimate the severity of global warming, in a way that may actually confuse policymakers (or worse). The IPCC, one scientific group charged last year, has a tendency to “err on the side of least drama.”
============================================
I hope you do not believe everything you read. The IPCC takes the modeled mean of all their wrong models, which all run way to warm and postulates the harms based on the modeled results, not the observations.
Hope, please read about this meeting from an APS meeting on CAGW. The skeptics roundly trounced the CAGW proponents.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/12/notes-on-the-aps-workshop-on-climate-change/
Hope says:
“….In fact, All 9K studies the AR-5 is based on remain valid….”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh Boy did Hope step into it with that one.
Chapter Seven, Second Draft: (page 7-43, lines 1-5, emphasis added):
And Lots and Lots of papers. Here are a few from the last couple of years (no links)
Evidence for solar forcing in variability of temperatures and pressures in Europe
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 71, Issue 12, pp. 1309-1321, August 2009)
– Jean-Louis Le Mouel et al.
Evidence for Obliquity Forcing of Glacial Termination II
(Science, Volume 325, Issue 5947, pp. 1527-1531, September 2009)
– R. N. Drysdale et al.
Possible orographic and solar controls of Late Holocene centennial-scale moisture oscillations in the northeastern Tibetan Plateau
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 36, Number 21, November 2009)
– Cheng Zhao et al.
Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 71, Issues 17-18, pp. 1916-1923, December 2009)
– Nicola Scafetta
Long-term solar activity as a controlling factor for global warming in the 20th century
(Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 49, Number 8, pp. 1271-1274, December 2009)
– V. A. Dergachev, O. M. Raspopov
Quasisecular cyclicity in the climate of the Earth’s Northern Hemisphere and its possible relation to solar activity variations
(Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 49, Number 7, pp. 1056-1062, December 2009)
– M. G. Ogurtsov et al.
A solar pattern in the longest temperature series from three stations in Europe
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 72, Issue 1, pp. 62-76, January 2010)
– Jean-Louis Le Mouel, Vladimir Kossobokov, Vincent Courtillot
Evolution of seasonal temperature disturbances and solar forcing in the US North Pacific
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 72, Issue 1, pp. 83-89, January 2010)
– Vincent Courtillot, Jean-Louis Le Mouel, E. Blanter, M. Shnirman
Possible manifestation of nonlinear effects when solar activity affects climate changes
(Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 50, Number 1, pp. 15-20, February 2010)
– M. G. Ogurtsov et al.
A statistically significant signature of multi-decadal solar activity changes in atmospheric temperatures at three European stations
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 72, Issues 7-8, pp. 595-606, May 2010)
– Vladimir Kossobokov, Jean-Louis Le Mouel and Vincent Courtillot
Difference in the air temperatures between the years of solar activity maximum and minimum and its mechanism
(Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 50, Number 3, pp. 375-382, June 2010)
– A. I. Laptukhov, V. A. Laptukhov
Solar Minima, Earth’s rotation and Little Ice Ages in the past and in the future: The North Atlantic-European case
(Global and Planetary Change, Volume 72, Issue 4, pp. 282-293, July 2010)
– Nils-Axel Morner
Quantifying and specifying the solar influence on terrestrial surface temperature
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 72, Issue 13, pp. 926-937, August 2010)
– C. de Jager, S. Duhau, B. van Geel
Global temperatures and sunspot numbers. Are they related? Yes, but non linearly. A reply to Gil-Alana et al. (2014)
(Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Volume 413, pp. 329-342, November 2014)
– Nicola Scafetta et al.
Solar forcing of the semi-annual variation of length-of-day
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 37, Number 15, August 2010)
– Jean-Louis Le Mouel et al.
The Influence of the Atmospheric Transmission for the Solar Radiation and Earth’s Surface Radiation on the Earth’s Climate
(Journal of Geographic Information System, Volume 2, Number 4, pp. 194-200, October 2010)
– Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, Alexander I. Bogoyavlenskii, Sergey I. Khankov, Yevgeniy V. Lapovok
Dynamical Response of the Tropical Pacific Ocean to Solar Forcing During the Early Holocene
(Science, Volume 330, Number 6009, pp. 1378-1381, December 2010)
– Thomas M. Marchitto et al.
Solar Activity and Svalbard Temperatures
(Advances in Meteorology, Volume 2011, pp. 1-8, 2011)
– Jan-Erik Solheim, Kjell Stordahl, Ole Humlum3
Natural climatic oscillations driven by solar activity
(Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 51, Number 1, pp. 131-138, February 2011)
– A. A. Gusev
Variations in tree ring stable isotope records from northern Finland and their possible connection to solar activity
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 73, Issues 2-3, pp. 383-387, February 2011)
– Maxim Ogurtsov
A new approach to the long-term reconstruction of the solar irradiance leads to large historical solar forcing
(Astronomy & Astrophysics, Volume 529, A67, April 2011)
– A. I. Shapiro et al.
Possible impact of interplanetary and interstellar dust fluxes on the Earth’s climate
(Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 51, Number 2, pp. 275-283, April 2011)
– M. G. Ogurtsov, O. M. Raspopov
A unified approach to orbital, solar, and lunar forcing based on the Earth’s latitudinal insolation/temperature gradient
(Quaternary Science Reviews, Volume 30, Issues 15–16, pp. 1861-1874, July 2011)
– Basil A. S. Davis, Simon Brewer
Climate patterns in north central China during the last 1800 yr and their possible driving force
(Climate of the Past, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp. 685-692, July 2011)
– L. Tan et al.
Sun-earth relationship inferred by tree growth rings in conifers from Severiano De Almeida, Southern Brazil
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 73, Issues 11-12, pp. 1587-1593, July 2011)
– A. Prestes et al.
Evidence of solar signals in tree rings of Smith fir from Sygera Mountain in southeast Tibet
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 73, Issue 13, pp. 1959-1966, August 2011)
– Xiaochun Wang, Qi-Bin Zhang
Solar-geomagnetic activity influence on Earth’s climate
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 73, Issue 13, pp. 1607-1615, August 2011)
– S. Mufti, G.N. Shah
Temporal derivative of Total Solar Irradiance and anomalous Indian summer monsoon: An empirical evidence for a Sun-climate connection
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 73, Issue 13, pp. 1980-1987, August 2011)
– Rajesh Agnihotri, Koushik Dutta, Willie Soon
Variation in surface air temperature of China during the 20th century
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 73, Issue 16, pp. 2331-2344, October 2011)
– Willie Soon, Koushik Dutta, David R. Legates, Victor Velasco, WeiJia Zhang
Solar Activity and Svalbard Temperatures
(Advances in Meteorology, Volume 2011, pp. 1-8, December 2011)
– Jan-Erik Solheim et al.
A shared frequency set between the historical mid-latitude aurora records and the global surface temperature
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 74, pp. 145-163, January 2012)
– Nicola Scafetta
Evidences for a quasi 60-year North Atlantic Oscillation since 1700 and its meaning for global climate change
(Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 107, Issue 3-4, pp. 599-609, February 2012)
– Adriano Mazzarella, Nicola Scafetta
Hydroclimate of the northeastern United States is highly sensitive to solar forcing
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 39, February 2012)
– Jonathan E. Nichols, Yongsong Huang
Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age
(Applied Physics Research, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp. 178-184, February 2012)
– Habibullo I. Abdussamatov
Variability of rainfall and temperature (1912-2008) parameters measured from Santa Maria (29°41′S, 53°48′W) and their connections with ENSO and solar activity
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 77, pp. 152-160, March 2012)
– P. H. Rampelotto et al.
Bicentennial decrease of the solar constant leads to the Earth’s unbalanced heat budget and deep climate cooling
(Kinematics and Physics of Celestial Bodies, Volume 28, Number 2, pp. 62-68, April 2012)
– Kh. I. Abdusamatov
Trends in sunspots and North Atlantic sea level pressure
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 117, Issue D7, April 2012)
– Harry van Loon et al.
Strong evidence for the influence of solar cycles on a Late Miocene lake system revealed by biotic and abiotic proxies
(Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, Volumes 329-330, pp. 124-136, April 2012)
– A. K. Kern
Assessment of the relationship between the combined solar cycle/ENSO forcings and the tropopause temperature
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 80, pp. 21-27, May 2012)
– Alfred M. Powell Jr., Jianjun Xu
Testing an Astronomically Based Decadal-Scale Empirical Harmonic Climate Model vs, the IPCC (2007) General Circulation Models
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 80, pp. 124-137, May 2012)
– Nicola Scafetta
The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 80, pp. 267-284, May 2012)
– Jan-Erik Solheim, Kjell Stordahl, Ole Humlum
Solar Forcing of Climate
(Surveys in Geophysics, Volume 33, Issue 3-4, pp. 445-451, July 2012)
– C. de Jager
Climatic variables as indicators of solar activity
(Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 52, Issue 7, pp. 931-936, December 2012)
– A. S. Balybina, A. A. Karakhanyan
Stratospheric circumpolar vortex as a link between solar activity and circulation of the lower atmosphere
(Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 52, Issue 7, pp. 937-943, December 2012)
– S. V. Veretenenko, M. G. Ogurtsov
Impact of the geomagnetic field and solar radiation on climate change
(Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 52, Issue 8, pp. 959-976, December 2012)
– V. A. Dergachev, S. S. Vasiliev, O. M. Raspopov, H. Jungner
Is there a planetary influence on solar activity?
(Astronomy & Astrophysics, Volume 548, pp. 1-9, December 2012)
– J. A. Abreu et al.
Orbital forcing of tree-ring data
(Nature Climate Change, Volume 2, Number 12, pp. 862-866, December 2012)
– Jan Esper et al.
Solar influences on atmospheric circulation
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volumes 90-91, pp. 15-25, December 2012)
– K. Georgieva et al.
A Mechanism for Lagged North Atlantic Climate Response to Solar Variability
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 40, Issue 2, pp. 434-439, January 2013)
– Adam A. Scaife et al.
Solar irradiance modulation of Equator-to-Pole (Arctic) temperature gradients: Empirical evidence for climate variation on multi-decadal timescales
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 93, pp. 45-56, February 2013)
– Willie Soon, David R. Legates
A possible solar pacemaker for Holocene fluctuations of a salt-marsh in southern Italy
(Quaternary International, Volume 288, pp. 239-248, March 2013)
– Federico Di Rita
The role of solar activity in global warming
(Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Volume 83, Issue 3, pp. 275-285, May 2013)
– S. V. Avakyan
Solar Wind, Earth’s Rotation and Changes in Terrestrial Climate
(Physical Review & Research International, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp. 117-136, April-June 2013)
– Nils-Axel Morner
Solar and Planetary Oscillation Control on Climate Change: Hind-Cast, Forecast and a Comparison with the CMIP5 GCMS
(Energy & Environment, Volume 24, Number 3-4, pp. 455-496, June 2013)
– Nicola Scafetta
Grand Minimum of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to the Little Ice Age
(Journal of Geology & Geosciences, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp. 1-10, July 2013)
– Habibullo I. Abdussamatov
Climate change and decadal to centennial-scale periodicities recorded in a late Holocene NE Pacific marine record: Examining the role of solar forcing
(Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, Volume 386, pp. 669-689, September 2013)
– J. M. Galloway, A. Wigston, R. T. Patterson, G. T. Swindles, E. Reinhardt, H. M. Roe
Influence of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, El Niño-Southern Oscillation and solar forcing on climate and primary productivity changes in the northeast Pacific
(Quaternary International, Volume 310, pp. 124-139, October 2013)
– R. Timothy Patterson et al.
Phase-locked states and abrupt shifts in Pacific climate indices
(Physics Letters A, Volume 377, Issue 28-30, pp. 1749-1755, October 2013)
– David H. Douglass
Terrestrial ground temperature variations in relation to solar magnetic variability, including the present Schwabe cycle
(Natural Science, Volume 5, Number 10, pp. 1112-1120, October 2013)
– C. de Jager, H. Nieuwenhuijzen
New evidence of solar variation in temperature proxies from Northern Fennoscandia
(Advances in Space Research, Volume 52, Issue 9, pp. 1647-1654, November 2013)
– M. Ogurtsov et al.
Clouds blown by the solar wind
(Environmental Research Letters, Volume 8, Number 4, December 2013)
– M. Voiculescu, I. Usoskin, S. Condurache-Bota
Deep solar activity minima, sharp climate changes, and their impact on ancient civilizations
(Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 53, Issue 8, pp. 917-921, December 2013)
– O. M. Raspopov, V. A. Dergachev, G. I. Zaitseva, M. G. Ogurtsov
Evidence of the solar Gleissberg cycle in the nitrate concentration in polar ice
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 2014)
– M. G. Ogurtsov, M. Oinonen
ACRIM total solar irradiance satellite composite validation versus TSI proxy models
(Astrophysics and Space Science, 2014)
– Nicola Scafetta, Richard C. Willson