Global Warming Conference Heats Up in May 2010

global warming.serendipityThumb Global Warming Conference Heats Up in May 2010CHICAGO, IL USA – What a difference a year makes! Last year at this time, global warming “skeptics” were dismissed as being a fringe group of dissenters from “the overwhelming consensus” of scientific opinion. Now, their critics are admitting that the science is far from settled and that global warming is not the crisis it was once made out to be.

Recent months have seen the collapse of international negotiations for a global warming treaty in Copenhagen, revelations of scientific fraud committed by a leading climate research organization, and demands for the resignation of the chairman of the United Nations’ global warming panel. British and Canadian newspapers are declaring the end of the global warming “fraud.”

The first major international meeting of global warming “skeptics” since Copenhagen, Climategate, and other extraordinary developments will take place in Chicago on May 16-18, 2010. It is the fourth such conference convened by the nonprofit Heartland Institute and scores of allied organizations, and it promises to be the largest and most consequential yet.

More than 70 of the world’s elite climate scientists and economists, including two former NASA astronauts and scientists from 15 countries, are scheduled to speak at the event, which is open to the public. Among the confirmed presenters are climate scientists Dr. Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama at Huntsville and economists Dr. Robert Mendelsohn of Yale University and Dr. Gabriel Calzada of King Juan Carlos University in Madrid.

Other international luminaries include Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, Dr. Fred Goldberg of the Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden, Dr. Helen Roe of Queens University in Belfast, and Dr. Garth Paltridge of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Oceans Studies in Australia.

“These past six months have not been good for the alarmist camp,” understated James M. Taylor, senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and manager of the conference. “Emails disclosed by a whistle-blower at Britain’s University of East Anglia show that key climate data supporting the purported crisis from rising global temperatures were doctored or manipulated, and scientists with contrary data were ignored or blackballed from peer-reviewed journals.”

Additionally, Taylor noted, the cap-and-trade scheme to tax carbon emissions is dead in the U.S. Senate. The chairman of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change–whose reports are the bible of the global warming alarmists–has lost support from key allies for conflicts of interest, and they are demanding his resignation. A majority of the public in the U.S., Britain, and around the world does not believe global warming is man-made or is likely to be a crisis.

“It’s time to step back and reconsider what we know and what we don’t know about the science and economics of global warming–especially the costs and benefits of proposed regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” Taylor said. “The Fourth International Conference on Climate Change will do exactly that.”

Some 800 scientists, economists, public policy experts, opinion leaders, elected officials, and journalists are expected to attend the conference, which opens with a keynote address Sunday, May 16, and concludes Tuesday afternoon, May 18, at the Marriott Hotel on Michigan Avenue in downtown Chicago.

For further information about registration, the program, and speakers, go to
www.globalwarmingheartland.org.


Todd Wynn is the climate change and energy policy analyst at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.

tt twitter big4 Global Warming Conference Heats Up in May 2010 tt digg big4 Global Warming Conference Heats Up in May 2010 tt facebook big4 Global Warming Conference Heats Up in May 2010 tt reddit big4 Global Warming Conference Heats Up in May 2010

Posted by at 05:30 | Posted in Measure 37 | 60 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Pingback: www.theworldcares.com

  • Rupert in Springfield

    I think at this stage the populous, at least in this country, has struck a balance with AGW, a happy medium. They will mention it occasionally, but not too much, and they will do things to prevent it, if not too inconvenient. However they wont brook much disruption in their lives nor pay the vast taxes the AGW crowd had been salivating over.

    In short AGW has become Tibet. A platitude to be concerned over, something one can affect a very earnest demeanor about at the right moments during the cocktail party but that’s about the usefulness of it.

    Would anyone have supported going to war over Tibet? Of course not. Even aggressive sanctions or hot and heavy pursuit in the UN would have been far too much. Tibet was about having an open wound one could be proud of to show ones heroism of caring, but other than slapping a “Free Tibet” bumper sticker over that wound, there was nothing. A vapid concern played up so as to make the bumper sticker wearer look and feel more relevant and serious than he really was.

    Same thing with AGW. It is a display device for ones earnestness. It is “Free Tibet”, something that was initially fascinating. It involved esoteric science just as Tibet involved far away lands. Who could have knowledge of these things other than a well read or well traveled person?

    It allowed one to pretend scientific acumen and caring for the global village. However if pressed beyond the fashion accessories, a Prius, the cool $30 solar powered walkway lamps from Home Depot, people at this stage will not tolerate it.

    AGW has moved towards the tattered sticker on the bumper “Free Tibet” became. Just as the far away eastern concerns became dull after everyone could find Tibet on a map, and Tibetan jewelry was sold on every street corner AGW has become less arcane. It’s not as new or cool, the arguments are boring and more importantly the counter arguments, such as Climategate, are now becoming well known.

    There is a quiet steady state now. Don’t push too hard on the economic ruin that the AGW clergy was insistent on and we will let you keep your little display device for earnestness. Keep it up on the shelf in the curio cabinet and amuse your guests with your deep caring. However don’t try to take it on tour. The Antiques Roadshow of reality might call and point out your priceless object of deep and earnest caring is a fake.

    You aren’t going to save the planet just as you weren’t going to free Tibet. You are going to affect earnestness and oh so much personal depth. You care, we know, we got it, been there bought the bumper sticker.

    This message brought to you by the DEM’s

    (Department of Excessive Metaphor’s)

    • Mark Meaker

      So, Todd Wynn, hack journo from the Right, what’s it like living your life as a *moron*? Grasp your ears firmly and pull; you might just be able to remove your head from you ass.

      • jim karlock

        Yet another literate, studied reply from a true believer in Al Gore’s lies.

        Thanks
        JK

  • Bob Clark

    The skeptics need to keep stabbing this Man made global warming monster, because it is something that comes and goes and most importantly, there is an element of truth keeping the monster around. We can not deny we have some, albeit fractional, contribution to the environment. The real debate is how to balance freedom and prosperity while trying to limit environmental externalities. I think most Americans understand Al Gore, the EPA, and the current Administration are too extreme in this balance, towards limiting freedoms and prosperity. I am not sure about the Portland, Oregon, crowd which uses it as a facade for restriciting development to its city core inorder to enrich its real estate developers/construction companies. It also as enforced by state and METRO rules allows the local rich crowd to have their wildnerness playgrounds to themselves without having to put up with the commoners.

  • valley p

    “What a difference a year makes! Last year at this time, global warming “skeptics” were dismissed as being a fringe group of dissenters from “the overwhelming consensus” of scientific opinion.”

    I hate to break this to you, but you are still a fringe group a dissenters from an overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion.

  • jim karlock

    *Deam Apostile hiding as Valley p* I hate to break this to you, but you are still a fringe group a dissenters from an overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion.
    *JK:* I hate to break this to you (hehe), but your chief liar has started coming clean. One of the world’s leading climate “scientists” and IPCC lead author, Phil Jones said
    1. There is nothing unusual about recent warming compared to warnings before CO2 increased.
    2. There has been no statistically-significant global warming since 1995.
    3. There has been cooling since Jan 2002.
    4. The majority of climate scientists DO NOT think the debate is over.
    5. Their whole case for man’s causing warming is this: “ The fact that we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing”

    Laughable Dean, your position is absolutely laughable. It is time to admit you were had by Al Gore & his Wall Street greed machine and quit being a sucker for every green crackpot that comes along. Learn to look at evidence and ,most of all: learn to THINK.

    Here are the actual quotes to support the above:
    BBC:- Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
    CRU Head, Dr. Jones: So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

    BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
    CRU Head, Dr. Jones: Yes, but only just.

    BBC: There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?
    CRU Head, Dr. Jones: There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

    BBC- If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?
    CRU Head, Dr. Jones: The fact that we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing – see my answer to your question D.

    BBC: When scientists say “the debate on climate change is over”, what exactly do they mean – and what don’t they mean?
    CRU Head, Dr. Jones: … I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.

    BBC: Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
    CRU Head, Dr. Jones: No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

  • David Appell

    The AGW concern is not whether there is statistically significant warming between years A and B, except when the years are far apart. Nor is it whether average temperatures were ever warmer in the past.

    The last 150 years, and esp the last 50, is a new era with new forcings — in effect, a whole new ball game. The issue is that certain gases are greenhouse gases, well-known to be heat trapping. That’s basic physics. Even if there were as yet absolutely no signs of warming taking place, we would be right (as was Arrhenius) to be very concerned about emitting CO2, etc into the atmosphere for its AGW effect.

    • jim karlock

      * David Appell:* The last 150 years, and esp the last 50, is a new era with new forcings — in effect, a whole new ball game.
      *JK:* Then how come the recent warming was just like those in the past that didn’t have man’s CO2?

      * David Appell:* The issue is that certain gases are greenhouse gases, well-known to be heat trapping. That’s basic physics.
      *JK:* You lie again. Man’s greenhouse gas is the subject of this discussion and man’s CO2 is only 3-4% of the total annual CO2 emission. Co2 is responsible for less than 1/3 of the greenhouse effect. The major greenhouse gas is water vapor. You know that, but keep trying to blame man so that you have an excuse to get rid of the industrialized society that you hate so much.

      * David Appell:* Even if there were as yet absolutely no signs of warming taking place, we would be right (as was Arrhenius) to be very concerned about emitting CO2, etc into the atmosphere for its AGW effect.
      *JK:* Right, put billions of people in poverty, kill many millions more with carbon restrictions just to fight YOUR imagined danger. And all to cut 3% of the annual CO2 emissions which MIGHT be causing 1% of the greenhouse effect.

      Why don’t you go back to scaring little children with your crap in New Scientist and other purveyors of garbage. (Sad, New Scientist used to be respectable.)

      Thanks
      JK

      • David Appell

        >> David Appell: The last 150 years, and esp the last 50, is a new era with new
        >> forcings — in effect, a whole new ball game.
        > JK: Then how come the recent warming was just like those in the past that didn’t have man’s CO2?

        What exactly do you mean by “was just like…”?

      • David Appell

        > Man’s greenhouse gas is the subject of this discussion and man’s CO2
        > is only 3-4% of the total annual CO2 emission. Co2 is responsible for
        > less than 1/3 of the greenhouse effect. The major greenhouse gas is water vapor. You
        > know that, but keep trying to blame man so that you have an excuse to get rid
        > of the industrialized society that you hate so much.

        These facts are all well-known.

        Water vapor content does not alter appreciably due the activities of man (except as a positive feedback).

        Though “small,” the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm CO2 (and the other greenhouse gases) causes 30+ F degrees of warming. So it’s no surprise, at first glance, another 35% would cause yet more warming. And that’s what deeper analysis shows.

      • David Appell

        > JK: Right, put billions of people in poverty, kill many millions more with carbon restrictions

        Of course, the solution is alternative, noncarbon energies, not the cessation of energy production.

        Moreover, if the problem is not addressed, there could indeed in the long-run be something like the kind of havoc you suggest. Not acting is a choice, with its own set of consequences.

        • jim karlock

          *David Appell*
          >> David Appell: The last 150 years, and esp the last 50, is a new era with new
          >> forcings — in effect, a whole new ball game.
          > JK: Then how come the recent warming was just like those in the past that didn’t have man’s CO2?
          What exactly do you mean by “was just like…”?
          *JK:* I mean this, in Phil Jones’s words in response to a BBC question:
          BBC:- Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
          CRU Head, Dr. Jones: So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

          *David Appell*
          > Man’s greenhouse gas is the subject of this discussion and man’s CO2
          > is only 3-4% of the total annual CO2 emission. Co2 is responsible for
          > less than 1/3 of the greenhouse effect. The major greenhouse gas is water vapor. You
          > know that, but keep trying to blame man so that you have an excuse to get rid
          > of the industrialized society that you hate so much.

          These facts are all well-known.

          Water vapor content does not alter appreciably due the activities of man (except as a positive feedback).

          Though “small,” the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm CO2 (and the other greenhouse gases) causes 30+ F degrees of warming. So it’s no surprise, at first glance, another 35% would cause yet more warming. And that’s what deeper analysis shows.
          *JK:* You conveniently leave out the magnitude of the CO2 vs H2O & man’s tiny part of annual CO2 emission. Once again, CO2 is less than 30% of that 30+ degrees of yours (that would be 10C) and man’s CO2 is less than 4% of that (4 % of 10 is 0.4C). But since CO2 is a log function, make that 0.4C more like 0.04C.
          PS: Later research shows the alarmist assumption of H2O being positive to be wrong – it is neutral to negative.

          *David Appell*
          > JK: Right, put billions of people in poverty, kill many millions more with carbon restrictions

          Of course, the solution is alternative, noncarbon energies, not the cessation of energy production.

          Moreover, if the problem is not addressed, there could indeed in the long-run be something like the kind of havoc you suggest. Not acting is a choice, with its own set of consequences.
          *JK:*
          Which is it David: act now and hurt billions of people, or wait for “alternative, noncarbon energies,”
          (Or admit the truth: your side is simply without merit and there is no need to do anything except prosecute the fraud artists like Mann, Jones, Gore and Hansen.)

          Now you can go peddle your BS somewhere else.

          Thanks
          JK

          • David Appell

            > BBC:- Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the
            > IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998
            > were identical?

            These time periods are all in the industrial era. I still do not see your point. Rates of change in all there periods have been large relative to natural changes in pre-industrial periods, except for the Younger Dryas.

          • jim karlock

            *David Appell* 5.1.3.1 jim karlock on 2010-03-06 02:04 (Reply)
            > BBC:- Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the
            > IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998
            > were identical?

            These time periods are all in the industrial era.
            *JK:* There was a heck of a lot more annual emissions in the 1975-1998 period than in the 1860-1880 period. But the rate of warming was similar. Same for 1910-1940 compared to 1975-1998.

            Thanks
            JK

          • David Appell

            > There was a heck of a lot more annual emissions in the 1975-1998 period than
            > in the 1860-1880 period. But the rate of warming was similar. Same for 1910-1940
            > compared to 1975-1998.

            As always, there are a multitude of factors at work, including natural factors, and each individual factor varies in time. Skeptics continually seem unable to grasp this. You can’t just willy nilly compare the past 25 years to the period 100 years ago. There are different factors at play.

          • David Appell

            > and man’s CO2 is less than 4% of that

            Pre-industrial levels of atmospheric CO2 was about 270-280 ppm.
            Today’s level is 388 ppm.

            That’s a 40% increase.

          • jim karlock

            *David Appell*
            > and man’s CO2 is less than 4% of that
            Pre-industrial levels of atmospheric CO2 was about 270-280 ppm.
            Today’s level is 388 ppm.

            That’s a 40% increase.
            *JK:* As usual you completely miss the point. The overwhelming majority of CO2 emission in NATURAL, NOT from man’s activity. The fact that you claim that cutting man’s 4% of the total will have any effect shows how naive you are. Or you have another motive – like reducing our standard of living to that of the third world for that is what your recommended actions will do.

            Thanks
            JK

          • jim karlock

            That’s a 40% increase.
            *JK:* As usual you completely miss the point. The overwhelming majority of CO2 emission in NATURAL, NOT from man’s activity. The fact that you claim that cutting man’s 4% of the total will have any effect shows how naive you are. Or you have another motive – like reducing our standard of living to that of the third world for that is what your recommended actions will do.

            Thanks
            JK

          • David Appell

            > The overwhelming majority of CO2 emission in NATURAL, NOT from man’s activity.

            Of course, everyone knows this. But it’s not what AGW is all about — it’s about the *additional* CO2 that man is putting in the atmosphere, which has raised the “natural” CO2 level from 280 ppm to 388 ppm.

            > The fact that you claim that cutting man’s 4% of the total will have any effect shows how naive you are.

            That’s what climate scientist’s calculations show. With which parts, exactly, of their calculation do you disagree? What does your own calculation show? Please show your work.

          • jim karlock

            *David Appell* > The overwhelming majority of CO2 emission in NATURAL, NOT from man’s activity.

            Of course, everyone knows this. But it’s not what AGW is all about — it’s about the additional CO2 that man is putting in the atmosphere, which has raised the “natural” CO2 level from 280 ppm to 388 ppm.
            *JK:* No, David, everyone DOES NOT KNOW THIS. The fear mongers carefully avoid telling people that “hey 96% of annual CO2 is from nature, but man’s 4% is going to give the earth a fever, while nature’s 96% is no problem! You know this.

            And where is the proof that it is man’s 4% that has raised the “natural” CO2 level from 280 ppm to 388 ppm instead of nature’s 96%? Laughable David, just laughable.

            *David Appell* > The fact that you claim that cutting man’s 4% of the total will have any effect shows how naive you are.

            That’s what climate scientist’s calculations show. With which parts, exactly, of their calculation do you disagree? What does your own calculation show? Please show your work.
            *JK:* No David, you are the one making the claim – prove it!

            Thanks
            JK

          • David Appell

            > And where is the proof that it is man’s 4% that has raised the “natural” CO2 level from
            > 280 ppm to 388 ppm instead of nature’s 96%? Laughable David, just laughable.

            Jim, this has been noted time and time again. Do you have a bad memory, or are you purposely ignoring the science?

            “Manmade” CO2, coming from underground fossil fuel reserves, has a different radioactive signature than does “natural” CO2. Their ratios of carbon isotopes (C13/C12) differ. Thus, a very easy measurement and a very easy calculation establish whether the additional CO2 is manmade or not.

            Next question?

          • David Appell

            > No David, you are the one making the claim – prove it!

            I didn’t think, Jim, that you would be able to provide a calculation of your own. (Which is not surprising, seeing as how you don’t even know the rules of logarithms.)

            Climate scientists have been doing this calculation for about three decades now, and they’ve found that they can’t quantitatively explain the last several decades of the earth’s climate without factoring in a strong anthropogenic component. The summary of this calculation is presented in the IPCC 4AR WG1 FAQ 2.1 Fig 2 p 136 (available at http://www.ipcc.ch). With which of these numbers do you disagree, why, and what numbers do you consider correct instead? Moreover, do your numbers explain today’s climate? Because when climate scientists take these numbers and plug them into their best models, they *do* explain recent climate, but if and only if anthropogenic forces are included. Without them, recent climate cannot be explained. This is shown in detail in the IPCC 4AR WG1 Ch 9 FAQ 9.2 Fig 1, p. 703 (bottom three graphs)
            http://tinyurl.com/27ocvp .

          • dan

            Ah yes, the old argument of ‘because we don’t have any idea what is going on….it must be human activity”.

            Hmmm…so scientists are using models they created….for some reason they aren’t working (surprise! hahaha every tried to put all the complex interactions on earth into a model…not so easy!).

            So they assume it MUST be human activity. Of course, such an easy solution! Now they can just input human activity in their made up equation and BAM they look like smart scientists that can predict the happenings of the complex climate! More grant funds please!

            Yay! I totally trust this. You are absolutely correct David. I am just about to run out and throw away my SUV, advocate for ‘green’ power, and denounce climate skeptics as deniers!

          • David Appell

            Dan, you have clearly not read much about modern climate science, and your reply is a sound demonstration of your ignorance.

            Climate scientists do not assume anything. They build models based on fundamental physics, and then solve those equations. Such models show that unless today’s manmade factors are taken into account, modern climate cannot be explained.

            But when manmade factors, today’s climate can be explained.

            Climate scientists have been doing this calculation for about three decades now, and they’ve found that they can’t quantitatively explain the last several decades of the earth’s climate without factoring in a strong anthropogenic component. The summary of this calculation is presented in the IPCC 4AR WG1 FAQ 2.1 Fig 2 p 136 (available at http://www.ipcc.ch). With which of these numbers do you disagree, why, and what numbers do you consider correct instead? Moreover, do your numbers explain today’s climate? Because when climate scientists take these numbers and plug them into their best models, they *do* explain recent climate, but if and only if anthropogenic forces are included. Without them, recent climate cannot be explained. This is shown in detail in the IPCC 4AR WG1 Ch 9 FAQ 9.2 Fig 1, p. 703 (bottom three graphs)
            http://tinyurl.com/27ocvp .

          • David Appell

            Acting now will not hurt “billions of people.” Steps to increase energy efficiency will save money. Reconfiguring our energy infrastructure will create millions of new jobs and make some entrepreneurs and investors very rich. Waxman-Markey cap-n-trade would cost the $175/household/yr by 2020 (http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=300). “Households in the lowest income quintile would see an average net *benefit* of about $40 in 2020, while households in the highest income quintile would see a net cost of $245.”

          • jim karlock

            *David Appell* Acting now will not hurt “billions of people.” Steps to increase energy efficiency will save money.
            *JK:* But there are few steps to reduce CO2 that will save money. You know that. You keep lying that wind and solar are viable sources of energy. Heck, even the Germans are starting to admit their mad rush to solar is a big waste of money.

            *David Appell* Reconfiguring our energy infrastructure will create millions of new jobs and make some entrepreneurs and investors very rich.
            *JK:* You need to study a bit of economics. (Just the first week of econ101 would be an improvement.) Creating jobs replacing low cost coal energy with more expensive wind and solar will harm our society, not help it. To help you understand: we have a perfectly good BILLION dollar coal plant. Trashing it and replacing it with a 10 BILLION dollar solar farm is not a benefit.

            *David Appell* Waxman-Markey cap-n-trade would cost the $175/household/yr by 2020 (http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=300). “Households in the lowest income quintile would see an average net benefit of about $40 in 2020, while households in the highest income quintile would see a net cost of $245.”
            *JK:* Nobody but the illiterate greens believe that number.

            Thanks
            JK

          • Todd Wynn

            The CBO study does not attempt a comprehensive measure of lost income and it explicitly states so in footnote 3 of its report.

            In addition, the CBO study assumes that government expenditure of one dollar is the same as not taxing that dollar. Unless you truly believe government is extremely efficient, carbon offsets lead to wealth increases, and money thrown into many ridiculous ‘climate solving’ projects around the world have merit, then government taking that dollar isn’t as good as you having it to spend yourself.

            In summary, the CBO’s methodology measures the administration costs of collecting and distributing the allowances rather than the full economic cost. That is all.

            Besides, the purpose of a cap-and-trade program is to INCREASE costs in order to change behavior away from GHG intense processes. If you are not increasing costs, there is no change in behavior and no decrease in GHG emissions. Thus by saying it isn’t going to cost much, you are effectively saying it isn’t going to accomplish much in terms of reduced emissions.

          • David Appell

            Todd, does the report indicate the damages to the future from the emission of a ton of CO2(e)? These never seem to get included in the equation for costs.

          • Todd Wynn

            “Todd, does the report indicate the damages to the future from the emission of a ton of CO2(e)? These never seem to get included in the equation for costs.”

            The cost of inaction eh? Always a favorite when one loses the argument on immense cost of a climate policy.

            If you ask that question you should probably be asking yourself other questions as well. Even assuming your dire predictions and man’s supposed drastic influence on climate, you should probably assess whether this climate policy would even be effective.

            If we reduced our emissions to zero here in the US ( I mean no fossil fuel plants, no internal combustion engines, etc), our emission reductions would be completely replaced by foreign growth in emissions in about 6 years.

            To assume a unilateral effort will save the world is out of touch. To assume that the entire world will sign on to the United States plan or something similar is crazy. To assume the entire world will actually achieve the drastic emission cuts you call for is ludicrous.

            If you want to ask for Americans to spend a lot of money on something that accomplishes nothing then at least say it outright.

          • David Appell

            JK:
            > Once again, CO2 is less than 30% of that 30+ degrees of yours (that would be 10C)
            > and man’s CO2 is less than 4% of that (4 % of 10 is 0.4C). But since CO2 is a log function,
            > make that 0.4C more like 0.04C.

            Jim, once again you show that you do not understand basic algebra.

            ln(10x) does not equal 10ln(x), as you used in the last line.

            Also, ln(x+y) does not equal ln(x) + ln(y).

            How can anyone take any science claim you make when you misunderstand the most fundamental points? This isn’t the first time you’ve utterly botched calculations involving logarithms, as with that claim you once made about Venus.

          • jim karlock

            *David Appell*
            JK:
            > Once again, CO2 is less than 30% of that 30+ degrees of yours (that would be 10C)
            > and man’s CO2 is less than 4% of that (4 % of 10 is 0.4C). But since CO2 is a log function,
            > make that 0.4C more like 0.04C.

            Jim, once again you show that you do not understand basic algebra.
            ln(10x) does not equal 10ln(x), as you used in the last line.

            Also, ln(x+y) does not equal ln(x) + ln(y).
            *JK:* You don’t appear to be capable of doing the calculation or you would have showed off you doing it.

            *David Appell* This isn’t the first time you’ve utterly botched calculations involving logarithms, as with that claim you once made about Venus.
            *JK:* That is another of your lies. I have already corrected you at least twice. Here it is again:
            ————- from 2010-02-01 00:24 —————————–
            *JK:* You are simply lying again. Here is the original exchange. Why don’t you point out my blunder (please keep in mind that I accurately described this as a “simple analysis”) Also keep in mind it was YOU who denied the log function of CO2, so this “simple” analysis gives a higher result than reality:

            —————- from 2009-03-08 04:18 ————
            *David Appell:* Please explain, under that assumption, why Venus (atmosphere: 96.5% CO2) has such a high mean temperature (462 C).

            If you say that it’s because Venus is closer to the Sun than earth (0.72 AU vs 1 AU), please calculate its solar irradiance and show how this accounts for the difference in temperatures between the atmospheres of Venus and Earth (14 C)
            *JK:* Why bother. Lets keep it simple. Our CO2 is about .04%, your Venus 96.5%, 2400 times as much. Lets give you the benefit of the doubt, keep it simple, and assume all of the 462c (above an otherwise 0c) is due to CO2. That is one degree for each 5 times earth’s CO2.

            By this simple analysis, we can increase CO2 by 5 times for ONE degree temperature rise. This is actually not too far off of some of the latest estimates. This suggests that we can increase CO2 by ten times with little more effect than bringing back the temperatures of the Roman times. If I recall correctly, we do not have that much fossil fuel.

            So, David, are you expecting our CO2 to reach 10-20 times its current level? If so tell us where we will get that much C to react with the O.
            ————- end of reminder for David —————-

            Lets recall some of your blunders:
            You blamed Katrina on global warming.
            You said the IPCC was all peer reviewed.
            You said the criminals at the CRU/ Mann etc were fine scientists.
            You claimed CO2 increases caused a proportional temperature increase.
            You said there was plenty of independent data.

            If you were honest about your arguments, you would have simple, clear explanations for your claims, such as:
            *1.* “the science is that the world is warming and man is responsible for much of it. This is well-established in the scientific literature.”
            *2.* CO2 can cause “far more than 0.5 C warming”
            *3.* “if you’re going to damage the climate by burning carbon ”
            *4.* “today’s CO2 is different – manmade (there’s irrefutable proof of this).”
            *5.* “Global warming is, simply, the most serious and most difficult problem ever faced by mankind. . .This is a sound, definite scientific conclusion, no longer in any real doubt”
            *6.* Global warming increases hurricanes.

            Thanks
            JK

          • David Appell

            Jim, I have no interest in correcting your multiple arithmetic mistakes. Learn some algebra.

            Especially since you are still unable to refrain from calling everyone who disagrees with you a “liar.”

            > You blamed Katrina on global warming.

            I’ve reviewed this since my 11/3/09 debate on the Victoria Taft show, and in actuality I did not say this. What I wrote was: “There is no crisis that will change our minds – not heat waves in France, not Katrina, not the disappearance of Arctic ice up north.” That is to say, no crisis of these levels, were they caused by AGW, would change anyone’s mind. Besides, no one knows if Katrina was caused by AGW or not, and in fact the question is currently unanswerable — it was caused by many things, not one thing, and AGW may well have been a part of that and probably was, though no one can yet say what part.

            (The Guardian, 12/13/08)

            > You said the IPCC was all peer reviewed.

            It certainly was. I’ve also explained that “peer-reviewed” does not mean it’s holy writ or does not contain mistakes.

          • jim karlock

            *David Appell* Especially since you are still unable to refrain from calling everyone who disagrees with you a “liar.”
            *JK:* Sorry David, but that is my reasonable conclusion deduced from the fact that you have made many mistakes of facts, considering that you are a Phd commenting on a subject broadly within the scope of your degree..

            *David Appell* You blamed Katrina on global warming.

            I’ve reviewed this since my 11/3/09 debate on the Victoria Taft show, and in actuality I did not say this.
            *JK:* Oh, really? Here is the quote in context:
            ———– begin David’s article extract ————
            Our problems, especially the climate crisis, are not going away anytime soon. The alternative technologies we need to reduce our carbon emissions to essentially zero – what scientists are now telling us is necessary – simply aren’t there, and won’t be anytime soon.

            Nor is the sense of crisis really there. Those claiming we are near some kind of catastrophic tipping point simply have no science to back up their claims.

            Those expecting that we are going to reduce our atmosphere’s carbon dioxide content to 350 parts per million are naïve activists perhaps living off the donations to their organisations. In any case, they are dreaming in la-la land.

            There is no crisis that will change our minds – not heat waves in France, not Katrina, not the disappearance of Arctic ice up north. We want what we want, and our species is lousy at planning for the future.
            ———– end begin David’s article extract ————
            (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/dec/12/environment-climate-change-poznan?commentpage=3)

            *David Appell* You said the IPCC was all peer reviewed.
            It certainly was. I’ve also explained that “peer-reviewed” does not mean it’s holy writ or does not contain mistakes.
            *JK:* It contains claims based on propaganda from the World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace and other “gray” publications. That is how the, now retracted by the IPCC, false claim of Himalayan glacier melting got published. And the false claim that global warming was leading to an increase in extreme weather, and false melting claims in Andes, Alps and Africa . They also falsely claimed that global warming could cut rain-fed north African crop production by up to 50% by 2020. One source counted over 100 references to non-peer reviewed sources.

            BTW, any comment on:
            1. CRU head and IPCC lead author, Phil Jones saying that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
            2. CRU head and IPCC lead author, Phil Jones saying that the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
            3. CRU head and IPCC lead author, Phil Jones saying that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
            4. CRU head and IPCC lead author, Phil Jones saying vast majority of climate scientists DO NOT think the debate on climate change is over?
            (See BBC interview at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm)

            Time to give it up and admit you were suckered by AL Gore and his cronies.

            Thanks
            JK

  • David Appell

    > James M. Taylor, senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland
    > Institute and manager of the conference. “Emails disclosed by a whistle-blower at
    > Britain’s University of East Anglia show that key climate data supporting the purported
    > crisis from rising global temperatures were doctored or manipulated….

    Skeptics keep claiming this. Which data were doctored, and in what way, exactly?

    • jim karlock

      *David Appell:* Skeptics keep claiming this. Which data were doctored, and in what way, exactly?
      *JK* Lets start with a crime:
      2/2/2005: The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, *I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.*
      (1107454306.txt)
      ——————-

      Thu May 29, 2008, Subject: *IPCC & FOI: Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?* Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. *Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?* I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise. (1212073451.txt)
      ——————- * Note* :D estroying information subject to a FOI request is a crime. ————–

      Here is both a crime and doctored dates:

      September 12, 2007: *Ammann/Wahl – try and change the Received date! Don’t give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with.* (1189722851.txt)
      ——————-

      Here is hiding inconvenient data:

      16 Nov 1999: I’ve just completed *Mike’s Nature trick* of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s *to hide the decline.*
      ( 942777075.txt)

      04 Jun 2003: I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that *it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”* , even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back (1054736277.txt)

      Here is modifying data to fit the conclusion:

      27 Sep 2009: * So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip* .

      *I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip* (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. (1254108338.txt)

      Thanks
      JK

      • valley p

        12 years of stolen emails and this is the best you can come up with? This hill of beans overturns over 120 years of climate science? Thousands of emails and not a single one that says “hey, we really pulled a fast one over on the whole world dude!” Something that turns CO2 into something other than a greenhouse gas? No. You have bupkess.

        We just had the warmest decade on record, which followed on the heels of the previous warmest. Every major scientific organization in the world is on record saying the earth is warming primarily due to greenhouse gasses. You trot out a few emails and an interview with one scientist that contain basically nothing and you think you have overturned reality. Sorry Jim. It doesn’t work that way.

        • Rupert in Springfield

          >Every major scientific organization in the world is on record saying the earth is warming primarily due to greenhouse gasses.

          Oh good lord, this isnt in contention by anyone on either side.

          Yes, we all now the primary greenhouse gas is water vapor. Clouds.

          No one will argue with you that greenhouse gasses cause warming. It is the man made variety we are concerned about.

          Besides which, you of all people know that even if it were true every major scientific organization beleived something, it could still be possible the whole thing is a lie dreamed up for political ends.

          Think that’s crazy?

          OK

          Then lets hear you say here and now that your contention that George Bush lied to get us into the Iraq war is a complete fabrication and something you made up.

          After all, every major intelligence organization agreed with him that Iraq had WMD’s, just like you are now claiming every major scientific organization agrees.

          Woopsie Dean – That’s a gotcha.

          And no, Dean Weasel number two – misdirection by unrelated argument – wont work here. The “wow you managed to tie together the Iraq war and AGW is getting really old.

          Answer the question – if every major organization agreeing with Bush, was a political manipulation because Bush lied, then how come the same doesn’t attend to AGW?

          I’m loving it, just loving it.

          Lol

          • valley p

            “Besides which, you of all people know that even if it were true every major scientific organization beleived something, it could still be possible the whole thing is a lie dreamed up for political ends.”

            Its not *if* Rupert. Its a fact. And scientists don’t engage in *beliefs* . They engage in *facts* . Yeah…anything is possible. Descartes showed that it is possible the entire world as one experiences it is an illusion put there by a mischievous God intent only on deceiving us. So it is certainly possible that every major scientific organization in the world is engaged in a grand conspiracy to deceive you and Jim K. Too bad something more substantive did not turn up in those emails to confirm your suspicions.

            Its also possible the world is flat, the earth really is only 6000 years old, NASA never landed on the moon, and Obama is a foreign born Muslim communist.

            “After all, every major intelligence organization agreed with him that Iraq had WMD’s”

            What is it you always like to say about me making a diversion if I can’t win an argument? George Bush and WMDs? Your trusty fallback argument again? Well sorry to burst your bubble but your premise is faulty.

            Bush said he had “no doubt.” All those intelligence organizations you say agreed with him had many doubts. They doubted the Niger uranium purchases. They doubted the purpose of the aluminum tubes. They doubted Saddam had any intent to use WMDs (if he still had any) against the US. They doubted Saddam had anthrax. They doubted whether he was making or stockpiling any chemical weapons. The IAEA and everyone but Bush and Rice doubted Saddam had any functional nuclear program or weapons. The CIA certainly doubted “Curveball”. The list of doubts is very long. Books have been written on this with whole chapters illuminating doubt after doubt.

            What you “got” is a whole lotta nothing. As usual Rupert.

            “Answer the question – if every major organization agreeing with Bush, was a political manipulation because Bush lied, then how come the same doesn’t attend to AGW?”

            Two part answer, so pay attention. (1) They didn’t agree with him. (2) Even if they did, what they were doing was not objective science. It was “intelligence,’ which whatever it is ain’t physical science. They had fragments of data and nothing more. Accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere and its influence on global temperature is objective, physical science. No need to rely on Curveball.

            “I’m loving it, just loving it.”

            I’m happy for you. I’ve met insane people on the streets who have all sorts of invisible friends that they sometimes seem to enjoy. But objectively, those friends do not exist.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Ok, I mostly wanted to see if you had developed your theories any further since the last time I asked you on this basic inconsistency in your belief system.

            I really just wondered if in light of Climategate revelations and the recent IPCC report scandals if your theory’s had changed at all, obviously they have not.

            Still, you have to admit, it is one of the most amazing rationalizations of discordant facts that anyone out there is walking around with. It is probably the most pure example of 1984 doublethink, holding two inconsistent beliefs to be true at the same time, that anyone alive has.

            I do still find it really interesting. Somehow you think it is possible Bush, with nothing to gain, lied and tricked every intelligence agency in the world into thinking Iraq had WMD’s even though not a single one has ever been found to have lied about the events.

            Yet you think it is impossible that those with a lot of money to gain, governments and government dole scientists, would lie about AGW, even though the list of those who have been caught lying ( NASA’s GISS head Hanson ) those suspected of lying (Head of CRU stepping down ) or making things up ( IPCC Himalayan glaciers melting ) is a pretty long list indeed.

            Again, it’s astonishing double think on your part, I just wanted to see if you still held to it.

          • valley p

            Rupert, I’m going to have to conclude that you really are deliberately obtuse. No one could actually be this dense and manage to eke by, let alone run a business.

            Bush said he had “no doubt.” So he either lied or did not listen to his briefers, who had doubts. He didn’t trick intelligence agencies. He tricked you and a substantial number of Americans. And that was apparently pretty easy because to this day, remarkably, you still believe him. Or at least pretend that you do. Which is worse is a good question.

            What did he have to gain? He wanted a war to take out Saddam and remake the Middle east. He needed a measure of public support for that war. He lied to get that support. He got it and his game was exposed when no weapons were found, no links between Saddam and Jihadists. This is not complicated, but seems beyond your grasp.

            The list of scientists who support *global warming reality* amounts to every major scientific organization in the world. That is a reality you can ignore or rationalize, but believing they are all engaged in a conspiracy for grants is about the dumbest conclusion one could reach. But you have indeed reached it. Mazeltov to you.

        • jim karlock

          *Deam Apostile hiding as Valley p* 12 years of stolen emails and this is the best you can come up with?
          *JK:* There you go again with the blatant assumptions. No one, other than the criminals at the CRU, has said publically how they got out.

          *Deam Apostile hiding as Valley p* This hill of beans overturns over 120 years of climate science?
          *JK:* 120 years? Laughable – that same “climate science” was predicting an ice age just a few years back.

          *Deam Apostile hiding as Valley p* Thousands of emails and not a single one that says “hey, we really pulled a fast one over on the whole world dude!”
          *JK:* No, they just committed the following crimes and unethical conduct in the emails:
          * Threats to delete data subject to FOI. (a crime if deleted) (1107454306.txt)
          * Requests for others to delete emails subject to FOI (probable crime) (1212073451.txt)
          * Hiding flaws in the data (the famous trick) ( 942777075.txt) (39154709.txt)
          * Falsification of data to be published in papers and IPCC reports. (Probable academic fraud) (1256735067.txt) (39154709.txt)
          * Request to forge a date on a paper to meet the IPCC deadline (Probable academic fraud) (1189722851.txt)
          * Falsifying research paid for by taxpayer funds. (Probable crime) (1254108338.txt) (39154709.txt)
          * Trying to suppress the Mediaeval Warm Period (1054736277.txt)
          * Admission that climate is cooling, while telling the world it is warming. (1120593115.txt)
          * Abuse of trust as a peer-reviewer. (1089318616.txt)
          * Biasing the IPCC report to emphasis warming (1177890796.txt) (938031546.txt)

          Other than that they are fine, upstanding pillars of the global warming community.

          *Deam Apostile hiding as Valley p* Something that turns CO2 into something other than a greenhouse gas? No. You have bupkess.
          *JK:* You should spend some time learning about your subject, then you wouldn’t make such a fool out of yourself: WATER VAPOR, not CO2 is the major greenhouse gas. CO2 is less than 30% of the effect and man emits less than 4% of the CO2. I’ll do the grade school math for you:
          4% of 30% is 1.2%. That is man’s MAX contribution to greenhouse effet.

          *Deam Apostile hiding as Valley p* We just had the warmest decade on record, which followed on the heels of the previous warmest.
          *JK:* Which record would that be? The satallite record of a few decades or the thermometer record of a couple centuries, or the ice core record of a few tens of thousands to millions of years?

          Tell me why you are so sure this last decade was warmer than the Medieval warm period and the Roman warm period and the Egyptian warm period and the Minoan warm period?

          *Deam Apostile hiding as Valley p* Every major scientific organization in the world is on record saying the earth is warming primarily due to greenhouse gasses.
          *JK:* So what? They are just groveling for grants and in a few cases the membership is revolting over these false claims.

          Face it, Dean, the rug has been pulled out from under your belief.

          Thanks
          JK

          • valley p

            “Which record would that be?”

            The global surface temperature record measured on modern instruments since 1880. 2009 was the 2nd warmest year on record since 1880, tied with 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007.

            The warmest year ever? 2005. The last 3 decades show an upward trend of .36F per decade. 2000-2009 was warmer than 1990-1999, which was warmer than 1980-1989.

            “Tell me why you are so sure this last decade was warmer than the Medieval warm period and the Roman warm period and the Egyptian warm period and the Minoan warm period?”

            Tell me why you ask ridiculous questions. There were no modern measurements of global temperature prior to 1880. How warm it was or wasn’t globally during any of those periods can only be approximated. It can’t be measured in reverse.

            “So what? They are just groveling for grants and in a few cases the membership is revolting over these false claims. ”

            Yes Jim. Every major scientific organization in the world is on record supporting *global warming reality* because they want grants. That is the only logical explanation. The data showing what *reality* is can’t possibly have anything to do with this. That would be too simple of an explanation. There must be a conspiracy. A cabal. A bunch of groveling scientists. That has to be it right?

            “Face it, Dean, the rug has been pulled out from under your belief.”

            Face it Jim. It is you and Rupert against the entire establishment of science and scientists. You are flat-earthers. Passionate ones to be sure, but passion is no substitute for knowledge.

          • David Appell

            > I’ll do the grade school math for you:
            > 4% of 30% is 1.2%. That is man’s MAX contribution to greenhouse effect.

            This analysis is grossly wrong, since different gases have different warming potentials and different atmospheric lifetimes. Moreover, it was discovered last year that different combinations of gases give rise to different GWPs than if they were simply summed individually, usually on the warmer side. Finally, the atmospheric composition of water vapor is a function of temperature and unaffected directly by man’s activities (though indirectly affected by warmer temperatures). Due to feedbacks there is no theoretical maximum mankind contribution to the greenhouse effect.

          • David Appell

            > Tell me why you are so sure this last decade was warmer than the Medieval
            > warm period and the Roman warm period and the Egyptian warm period and
            > the Minoan warm period?

            That’s what proxy records seem to show, with some uncertainties and some debate, but (again) comparing those periods to today is comparing apples to oranges, because there are new factors influencing today’s climate that didn’t exist before about 200 years ago (specifically, carbon transfer from underground, and land use changes/deforestation). Also waste heat, urban heat islands, and more.

      • David Appell

        Again, what data were doctored? Was a “2″ changed to an “8″ somewhere?

        The word “trick” has been explained again and again — it’s a term scientists use to mean a clever or insightful approach. You hear it in scientific classrooms and lectures all the time.

        • jim karlock

          * David Appell:* The word “trick” has been explained again and again — it’s a term scientists use to mean a clever or insightful approach.
          *JK:* Yep, clever and insightful way to hide the fact that the tree ring data was faulty, it was a carefully calculated move to hide the fact that over 1/3 of the data length, their main data source was a bad temperature proxy. Has they left in the whole data length, people would have laughed them out of town for using such a flawed proxy. And you know it and lied to us by claiming it was a “clever or insightful approach”. Truncating data is neither “clever or insightful”, it is just a tried and true method of fooling people. Such things are the foundation of climate “science” since it in not a science it is “ *As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.* ”
          (1256735067.txt)

          * David Appell:* You hear it in scientific classrooms and lectures all the time.
          *JK:* What kind of class did you go to where they taught you how to lie to people with clever tricks? Have you been hanging out too long with Gore, Hansen, Jones & Mann?

          Time to give it up David, even CRU head and IPCC lead author said it has stopped warming and that most scientists do not think the debate is over.

          Thanks
          JK

          • David Appell

            > Time to give it up David, even CRU head and IPCC lead author said it has
            > stopped warming and that most scientists do not think the debate is over.

            There was just a big ocean sciences meeting in Portland last month (http://www.agu.org/meetings/os10), with dozens of talks by working scientists on climate change. I don’t think there is one listed there that does not accept AGW as established science.

      • David Appell

        > 27 Sep 2009: So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
        > then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the
        > land blip .

        Nothing doctored here. All Wigley appears to be saying is that an unknown factor of such-and-such a magnitude would bring the results in line with what we expect — is there one out there? Scientists do this ALL THE TIME. It’s how new effects (such as spin, or the neutrino) are often uncovered.

        • jim karlock

          Sheesh! If you saw some guy coming out out of your house with your computer, you’d probably believe him if he said it was really his.

          Thanks
          JK

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Hey, you know a lot of people out there think OJ didn’t do it.

            I have some sympathy though. If you are trying to make your living as a science writer, as I think Mr. Appell is, then you can’t very well start doubting what you have been claiming was proven etched in stone scientific fact.

            Basically AGW is hanging on by this alone, so many people have their reputations and fortunes vested in it they aren’t going to give it up easily.

            Time will tell but the good news is AGW is on life support as a political tool, which is all it ever really was. You simply aren’t going to get people to go along with the loony wealth transfer schemes at this stage of the game.

  • Anonymous

    Is this the same Appell who lectured about the lofty IPCC using only peer reviewed science?

    And recenty we find out the IPCC used non peer reviewed fabrications from the lunatics fantaics at Greenpece and WWF.

    David, you’ve been humiliated so many times it’s amazing you haven’t crawled in a hole somewhere.
    You’re the poster child for the left wing fanatic fool.

  • Mike in Lebanon

    It’s the same David Appell who has been unremittingly rude and abusive for years. The most egregious ad hom attacks I have ever received at my website came from the same David Appell.

    Re “the trick”. What Mann et al did was splice instrument temperature data from 1,000 miles away onto tree ring proxy data (Yamal larches). They performed this trick because the tree rings showed a decline in (proxy) temps after 1960, and the cherry picked instrument temp data from 1,000 miles away showed a hockey stick increase. Mann et al explained the decline in tree ring proxies as an “anomaly,” but the fact is they have no on-site temp data to validate or calibrate ANY of the tree ring proxies, before or after 1960.

    What makes the trick even more suspect is that other researchers are now claiming that trees are growing faster, due to increased CO2 (allegedly anthropogenic). So which is it? Are trees growing faster or slower since WWII? Maybe CO2 causes trees to grow faster and slower, like yo-yos, depending on what fits the “scientific” model du jour.

    Inquiring minds ask: what other convenient tricks do Mann et al have up their sleeves? Hopefully for them, it is a Houdini kind of trick that will allow them to escape the straight jacket of justice they so richly deserve.

    • jim karlock

      Come on guys, be nice to David. He is seeing his fantasy of destroying our standard of living fall apart before his eyes and he is incapable of coming to grips with having fallen hook-line and sinker for the all too obvious lies of Mann, Hansen, Jones and Gore. He even continued to believe after the NAS issued it twin reports devastating Mann’s hockey stick. (The CRU emails merely confirmed what we already knew, or could reasonably conclude, from North & Wegman, including the per review fraud.) He is one of those highly educated people who never learned common sense, logic and rational judgement. He needs to spend less time reading WWF and other green propaganda.

      The other big shock for his ilk will when they realize that Lomborg was right about the state of the environment.

      Thanks
      JK

      • David Appell

        In actual fact, the NAS affirmed the hockey stick graph:

        http://super-structure.newsvine.com/_news/2006/06/29/272830-academy-affirms-hockey-stick-graph:

        “US National Academy of Science affirms hockey-stick graph but it criticizes the way the controversial climate result was used.” “We roughly agree with the substance of their findings,” says Gerald North, the committee’s chair and a climate scientist at Texas A&M University in College Station. In particular, he says, the committee has a “high level of confidence” that the second half of the twentieth century was warmer than any other period in the past four centuries. But, he adds, claims for the earlier period covered by the study, from AD 900 to 1600, are less certain. This earlier period is particularly important because global-warming sceptics claim that the current warming trend is a rebound from a ‘little ice age’ around 1600. Overall, the committee thought the temperature reconstructions from that era had only a two-to-one chance of being right. “The graph arose from the work of Michael Mann, a climatologist now at Pennsylvania State University in University Park, and two colleagues. In two papers published in 1998 and 1999, Mann’s team examined tree rings, ice cores and other ‘proxies’ of past climate, and used them to reconstruct the Northern Hemisphere’s temperature over the past millennium. “The academy essentially upholds Mann’s findings, although the panel concluded that systematic uncertainties in climate records from before 1600 were not communicated as clearly as they could have been. The NAS also confirmed some problems with the statistics. But the mistakes had a relatively minor impact on the overall finding,” says Peter Bloomfield, a statistician at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, who was involved in the latest report. This study was the first of its kind, and they had to make choices at various stages about how the data were processed, he says, adding that he would not be embarrassed to have been involved in the work.”

      • David Appell

        See also:

        “Academy affirms hockey-stick graph”
        Geoff Brumfiel
        Nature 441, 1032-1033 (29 June 2006) | doi:10.1038/4411032a; Published online 28 June 2006
        http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7097/full/4411032a.html

        • jim karlock

          *David Appell*
          In actual fact, the NAS affirmed the hockey stick graph: http://super-structure.newsvine.com/_news/2006/06/29/272830-academy-affirms-hockey-stick-graph:
          “US National Academy of Science affirms hockey-stick graph but it criticizes the way the controversial climate result was used.” “We roughly agree with the substance of their findings,” says Gerald North,
          *JK:*
          Of course he “roughly agrees” otherwise he risked being called a denier by fools like you.

          Why don’t you try reading the actual report? Or did you and you forgot to mention this part of that report:

          Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, *the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.*
          ………[Note that this claim is only “plausible”, not likely or probable or “supported by a wide variety of evidence”. In other words it is garbage.]

          The substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming. *Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium”* because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales.
          …….[Here is the often heard statement that we are the warmest in 1000 years. It is given “less confidence” than “plausable” (see above). Effectively, it is shown to be baseless.]

          BTW, did you catch the section where they say dome of the proxies Mann used were well known as inappropriate. (Just another element of Mann’s fraud.)

          *But the real analysis was done by Wegman in the companion report:*
          *Wegman Report, item 7, page 49:*
          (MBH is Mann’s hockey stick paper): Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported by the MBH98/99 analysis.
          *JK:* MBH98/99 are the papers that brought us the hockey stick.

          *Wegman Report, item 7, page 49:*
          The cycle of Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age that was widely recognized in 1990 has disappeared from the MBH98/99 analyses, thus making possible the hottest decade/hottest year claim. However, the methodology of MBH98/99 suppresses this low frequency information. The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable.

          *Wegman Report, item 6, page 49:*
          Generally speaking, the paleoclimatology community has not recognized the validity of the MM05 papers and has tended dismiss their results as being developed by biased amateurs.

          *Wegman Report, page 49:*
          1. In general we found the writing of MBH98 somewhat obscure and incomplete. The fact that MBH98 issued a further clarification in the form of a corrigendum published in Nature (Mann et al. 2004) suggests that these authors made errors and incomplete disclosures in the original version of the paper. This also suggests that the refereeing process was not as thorough as it could have been. . .

          *Wegman Report, page 49:*
          2. In general, we find the criticisms by MM03, MM05a and MM05b to be valid and their arguments to be compelling. We were able to reproduce their results and offer both theoretical explanations (Appendix A) and simulations to verify that their observations were correct. . .

          *JK:* MM03, MM05a are the blogger’s papers that exposed the errors. See ClimateAudit.org

          *Wegman Report, page 49, item 3:* . . Because the temperature profile in the 1902-1995 is not similar, because of increasing trend, to the millennium temperature profile, it is not fully appropriate for the calibration and, in fact, leads to the misuse of the principal components analysis. However, the narrative in MBH98 on the surface sounds entirely reasonable on this calibration point, and could easily be missed by someone who is not extensively trained in statistical methodology. Dr. Mann has close ties to both Yale University and Pennsylvania State University. We note in passing that both Yale University and Pennsylvania State University have Departments of Statistics with excellent reputations9. Even though their work has a very significant statistical component, based on their literature citations, there is no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have significant interactions with mainstream statisticians.

          *Wegman Report, page 49:*
          8. Although we have not addressed the Bristlecone Pines issue extensively in this report except as one element of the proxy data, there is one point worth
          mentioning. Graybill and Idso (1993) specifically sought to show that Bristlecone Pines were CO2 fertilized. Bondi et al. (1999) suggest [Bristlecones] “are not a reliable temperature proxy for the last 150 years. . .

          *Wegman Report, page 52:*
          Conclusion 4. While the paleoclimate reconstruction has gathered much publicity because it reinforces a policy agenda, it does not provide insight and understanding of the physical mechanisms of climate change except to the extent that tree ring, ice cores and such give physical evidence such as the prevalence of green-house gases. What is needed is deeper understanding of the physical mechanisms of climate change.

          *David Appell* See also: Nature 441, 1032-1033 (29 June 2006) | doi:10.1038/4411032a; Published online 28 June 2006
          *JK:* Also please quit relying of obviously biased sources like Nature which is a well know alarmist publication. Any facade of peer review was stripped away be Wegman. Too bad you keep ignoring this (and much other) reality.

          Thanks
          JK

          • David Appell

            > JK: Also please quit relying of obviously biased sources like Nature which is a
            > well know alarmist publication.

            NATURE is one of the two most supreme scientific journals in the world, and has been for over a century. It’s published far more important science than nearly anyone else. It is “alarmist” because we *should* be alarmed about the upcoming damage from high-CO2 atmospheric levels.

    • David Appell

      1000 mi splices are nothing new. All proxy data sets have gaps in them, in space and in time. Such factors go into determining the statistical uncertainty around the main values. Indeed, one of the major achievements of the MBH papers of the last 90s was figuring out how to calculate and propagate these uncertainties.

  • Anonymous

    Foolish and dishonest David,
    While attempting to sound scientific you haven’t even figured out how to recognize genuine science. You have repeatedly confused speculation and fabrication with established science.
    Your complete absence of any ability to distinguish BS in the AGW movement is astounding.
    How is it that you can be that lacking in perception and comprehension?
    Are you so afflicted with bias and fanaticism that you can’t be honest at all?
    Your hypocrisy is another major disqualifier for you and your pathetic science “journalist” charade.
    A shtick that’s long gone sour on these blogs.
    In short you’re no better than any buffoon over at BlueOregon.
    While lecturing others on confusing weather with climate you’ve been one of the worst violators of the confusion siting all sorts weather observations as indicators of AGW climate change.
    What a jerk.
    While disparaging skeptics for not having enough peer reviewed publication and trumpeting IPCC peer review you ignore the many fatal flaws in both peer review and IPCC lack of maintaining that qualification.
    The lessons in dishonest activism you continually demonstrate leaves you no better than the Tre Arrow eco terrorist sitting on building ledge in downtown Portland with a bucket for a toilet.

    You have nothing left but more and worse propaganda trying to preserve and spin forward the remnants of the AGW movement you so foolishly and unethicaly advocate.

    Are you sharing any of your profound BS at RealClimate, ClimateProgress , WUWT or any other major blog?
    Why is your name never seen at any of them?

    • Anonymous

      Question – Is this “David Appell” the guy who routinely gets bitch-slapped every time he publicly tries to debate AWG?

      I listened to one debate he was involved in and I believe it was a Chuck Weiss that mopped the floor with him.

      It is now more than obvious why Al Gore won’t debate anyone. He couldn’t take the trashing.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)