Skeptic Project

Dear Edward:
I thought that this website was devoted to debunking conspiracies and hoaxes. The purpose of me posting on your forum was to bring up Al Gore’s deceptive movie. He has taken the little understood and researched area of climatology and fabricated a doomsday scenario that goes far beyond any reckoning by the UN IPCC. The UN IPCC has many faults but, they are no where near the extravagant claims of Al Gore. That is why I have equated “An Inconvenient Truth” with “Zeitgeist the Movie”.

Climate does change and there are many possibilities for regional and global changes. There is good indications that man is the cause of much ecological disaster. The Himalayan ice melt has more to do with soot from unfiltered fuel burning than temperature change. That has more to do with poverty than CO2. Without affordable energy sources people will use whatever they can to cook and heat their homes. Only developed countries can afford to produce clean energy. We have come a long way in reducing pollution in the U.S. because we can afford to. We didn’t just call something a pollutant for political expediency, we tested substances to determine their detrimental effects. CO2 is essential to life, not detrimental. There is proof that CO2 is beneficial. The Duke University study http://face.env.duke.edu/PDF/np185-10.pdf shows tree stands exposed to enhanced CO2 grow significantly more and http://face.env.duke.edu/PDF/pce32-09a.pdf shows tree stands in enhanced CO2 are more resistant to drought. The sequestering of CO2 into deep underground facilities would take away a valuable resource. If it could be economically diverted to crops so that we could feed the increasing population, that would make more sense.
CO2 is almost twice as good an insulator as oxygen and nitrogen so we wouldn’t want it to be a major part of the atmosphere (it’s less than 0.039%)but, there is no unequivocal proof that man-made CO2 (0.001925% ) is the cause global warming and the increase of total CO2 is more of a result of global warming than anything we have done. There is variability in the Sun’s output which alone could produce the amount of warming we experienced in the 80’s and 90’s http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html but, as with most climate data sources, the required instrumentation has only been in place for a relatively short period of time.

I’m sorry if my references to Al Gore and his movie are tiresome to you but, he and his AGW religion have hijacked the science discussion. One cannot discuss climate without the ranting of the alarmists and political hacks trying to say if you don’t believe that man is the cause of global warming then you are a “denier“.

Muertos:
Most scientists are not followers of Al Gore’s AGW religion. They are concerned with finding out how the climate system works. Political and business pressures have focused the debate on anthropogenic forcing before we have even figured out the natural cycles.
Gerlich and Tscheuschner’s paper states that there is not a greenhouse effect since there is not a physical barrier to space or a partial barrier since a hypothetical layer of CO2 would block incoming IR radiation as well as outgoing IR radiation. In fact they explain that “the full theory of the atmospheric system must be a fusion of magnetohydrodynamics and radiation theory including earth’s gravity and rotation. The full theory should be a multi component theory and should include phase separation, plasma physics, and highly involved boundary conditions which, in general even, cannot be written down“. First the turbulence problem must be solved, and then we can discuss the existence of a local thermodynamic equilibrium for the photon bath in which the atmosphere is embedded. There is not one source in scientific literature, where the CO2 term enters the fundamental equations except in computer models. Computer models are computer games that use “flux corrections” to show what the political hacks want them to show. “Mathematically, even within the most simplified models you cannot predict anything, because all these ones crudely approximate non-linear partial differential equations with unknown boundary conditions. There is simply no physical foundation of the computer models with and without CO2“.
Your Eli Rabbet blog tries to confuse the issue with statements like according to G&T there wouldn’t be an atmosphere which is not what they say at all. Why not actually read G&T’s paper instead of letting others tell you what to think of it? http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb Vol. 23 No.3 Jan. 2009.
I read your “scientific” paper and it fell apart with just remedial science knowledge. If you would bother to read the paper you gave me by Smith you would should be able to see the obvious flaws in it. Instead you like to go “clicky with your mousey” to whatever the AGW priests say is proof that they are right.
The theory of CO2 induced global warming is just a theory that has very little evidence supporting it and much evidence that denounces it. The alarmists point to a small temperature increase over a brief period of time (geologically speaking) and increases of tons of CO2 emitted by mankind (miniscule on a planetary basis) and say they must be related. The theory is seriously questioned with a general knowledge of thermodynamics. Not everyone is familiar with thermodynamics including many scientists that don’t have a strong physics background. As an example, in over 150 years of testing there has never been a reproducible experiment that has shown a cooler body giving heat to a warmer body without an influx of additional energy. (second law of thermodynamics)
Gerlich and Tscheuschner are unbiased and independent (despite the smears that Al Gore’s investment cronies at Realclimate.org would have you believe) theoretical physicists familiar with stochastic description of nature and quantum field theory. They are also quite familiar with physics labs, the Scientific Method, and software engineering. They recognized the sham of the theory and wrote their paper to expose the farce.
Governments have a vested interest in coming up with reasons to tax their citizenry. Investment firms have a vested interest in coming up with new products to trade. So Al Gore is not the source of the CO2 demagoguery, just an exploiter that uses wild claims to further his financial goals. Al Gore has exploited the good nature of people to clean the environment, by calling an essential trace gas a poison so that his investments can turn him into a billionaire.
Has the trading of carbon credits in Europe benefited anyone other than those people that invested in them? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/11/business/worldbusiness/11carbon.html?_r=1 /> Has the promise of “green jobs” provided any relief to unemployment or energy production? Spain’s experience isn’t very inspiring. If we go down that road we can reasonably expect the loss of 2.2 jobs per job created even with government subsidies.
http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf<br /> The cost of renewable energy is too high http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/ to be economically viable without major improvements in technology. In ideal circumstances it comes somewhat close to the highest priced rates. Unfortunately there are few ideal circumstances.
What we really need is honest researchers that are willing to share data, their methods and materials of experimentation with other researchers so that theories can be examined openly. That means that politicians have got to keep their noses out of it. The CRU’s ex-director Jones admitted that data and papers that were not agreeable with his thinking were dismissed as a standard operating procedure. He has also admitted that there has not been any statistically significant warming in fifteen years and the past ten years have so far been trending cooler.
The few climatologists that agree with Al Gore’s doom and gloom scenario of his AGW religion are playing Russian roulette with their professional credibility and are generally more interested in politics than science. My dislike for people, including Al Gore, is determined by their actions, not political affiliation. As far as why you didn’t vote for him, by your mannerisms and lack of scientific knowledge it is probably because you are or were a juvenile not old enough to vote. Or are you going to say you voted for Bush?
Have a nice day.

"I thought that this website was devoted to debunking conspiracies and hoaxes. "

Yet Brad, you refuse to deal with your own errors and frauds you promote. I gave you several examples and you have ignored every single one of them, choosing to try and only defend the Oregon petition, badly. Get it through your head, the petition is a complete fraud.

Dear Ed:
All you offer is videos to watch and after viewing a few, they lose their comedy value. If you haven't followed the posts I made to Muertos, I also referenced a list compiled by the U.S. Senate Committee that is more recent than the Petition Project. If you honestly believe that there is a consensus in the belief of AGW then you have tunnel vision. Try reading more of a variety of news sources and see what makes sense to you. You might get a different perspective if you broaden your horizons.

"Al Gore has become the rock star of the AGW religion. His "documentary" styled sci-fi movie has made him millions while scaring the sh*t out of kids and weak willed people"

Really? I've never even seen it, yet I don't buy into this whole comic book fantasy where scientists and politicians have all aligned themselves in a global conspiracy to fool Brad270.

I don't really have an opinion on Al Gore either way and I don't buy into it.

It seems you exist in a world of extremes, where I either have to jerk off to pictures of Al Gore or I have to believe in a big conspiracy. What if I do neither? Where do I fit into your equation?

"What is your definition of a Libertarian? Is that the group that is fashionable to hate now?"

Right wingers who smoke pot, refuse vaccines and shop at Whole Foods.

Hating Libertarians has nothing to do with fashion. It has to do with hating Paultards, Schifftards and any other 'tard that might fall under the Libertardian umbrella. Usually because they exist in comic book worlds of conspiracy and rigid ideology. You sound pretty much exactly like them.

You suck shit at reading comprehension. Must be how you dodge answering questions half the time.

If you weren't so insufferably annoying, I might not hate you.

That's your bad, chump. I'm not going to try and find common ground with an extremist.

Since Libertardians only make up 1% of the national population, I don't think I hate very many people at all. That's right: 1%. Oh man, I sure do hate a lot of people.

Brad, I refrained from posting until you answered Ed's question about the Oregon Petition. Now just a couple of thoughts.

Here is a rephrase of what I asked:

"You're arguing that Al Gore started the hoax of global warming to make money, and he got a United Nations panel, NASA (controlled by Republicans at the time), the National Academy of Sciences, the EPA (which was controlled by Republicans at the time), the American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Brazilian Academy of Science, the French Academy of Science, Indian National Science Academy, Science Council of Japan, UK Royal Society, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, the German national science advisory council, the Australian Academy of Sciences, and the Academy of Sciences of Malaysia to join him on his quest to crush mankind through carbon taxes, with the use of (as you claim) pseudoscience so shoddy that it can be refuted (as you purport to do) by reference to Wikipedia and
a Webster's dictionary...Which is more likely: the scenario I just described, or the possibility that you may be mistaken as to how "easy" it is to refute the scientific basis for global warming?"

You answer is, near as I can tell, that yes, you think it IS more likely that Al Gore is the head of this vast conspiracy than it is that perhaps your understanding of the science is mistaken.

So, you--who I assume is not a scientist, nor am I--have a greater understanding of physics than all of the people on those various international scientific bodies I mentioned. ALL of those people are either ignorant, or have fallen in line behind Al Gore. I asked you why, if it was so easy to refute global warming, more trained scientists don't see the basic fact that you think is so easy, and your response is:

"Not everyone is familiar with thermodynamics including many scientists that don’t have a strong physics background."

But you are, though? I assume if you had an advanced physics degree you would have stated that before now.

I'm right now conducting some informal investigation into what general scientists know about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. When I have an answer I'll post the results in this topic. Should be interesting.

"Gerlich and Tscheuschner are unbiased and independent..."

Absolutely false, and proven false. You ignored this.

"What we really need is honest researchers that are willing to share data, their methods and materials of experimentation with other researchers so that theories can be examined openly."

We already have that. It's available at this link: http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

"The few climatologists that agree with Al Gore’s doom and gloom scenario of his AGW religion are playing Russian roulette with their professional credibility and are generally more interested in politics than science."

So, just to recap, the "few" climatologists that believe global warming is happening and it's anthropogenic include: the IPCC, NASA, the National Academy of Sciences, the EPA, the American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Brazilian Academy of Science, the French Academy of Science, Indian National Science Academy, Science Council of Japan, UK Royal Society, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, the German national science advisory council, the Australian Academy of Sciences, and the Academy of Sciences of Malaysia.

All of those scientists are more interested in politics than science, are they? All of them are risking their professional credibility to follow Al Gore? By supporting a position which is (as you claim) so shoddy that it can be refuted with a Webster's dictionary.

You think this is likely? Really?

"As far as why you didn’t vote for him, by your mannerisms and lack of scientific knowledge it is probably because you are or were a juvenile not old enough to vote. Or are you going to say you voted for Bush?"

I was 28 at the time of the 2000 election. I did not vote for Gore; I did not vote for Bush.

As far as you being a libertarian, I don't really care, though I suspect it was something in the libertarian realm that sparked your interest in global warming. I note from having read Ron Paul's web site that he's a strong global warming denier, and he pushes the Oregon Petition the same as you have been doing.

"I thought that this website was devoted to debunking conspiracies and hoaxes. The purpose of me posting on your forum was to bring up Al Gore’s deceptive movie. He has taken the little understood and researched area of climatology and fabricated a doomsday scenario that goes far beyond any reckoning by the UN IPCC. The UN IPCC has many faults but, they are no where near the extravagant claims of Al Gore. That is why I have equated “An Inconvenient Truth” with “Zeitgeist the Movie”."

This IS a website devoted to debunking conspiracies and hoaxes. One of the biggest conspiracy theories out there right now is that climate change is a hoax being foisted on the public by Al Gore. Curious, that's exactly the conspiracy theory that you're trying to get us to believe! "An Inconvenient Truth" is very, very far from being the tissue of deception that is "Zeitgeist." Considering that the basis of your belief that "An Inconvenient Truth" is fraudulent is the British court case you keep citing--the case that explicitly found that the science of global warming was sound--I can see no factual basis for you continuing to make this claim. While I can't speak for Edward, I would be extremely surprised if he decided to list "An Inconvenient Truth" as a conspiracy film on his site or if he decided to classify AGW as a conspiracy on par with 9/11 Truth, the Apollo moon hoax, the NWO and HAARP. In fact, it's quite likely that global warming DENIAL is likely to be classified on this site as a conspiracy theory worthy of serious debunking.

@ Ed:
"I dont see why anyone should bother with someone who cares as little as you do when they are wrong."

The only reason I disagree with this statement is because I think it's important to debunk global warming denial and various Al Gore conspiracy theories. Brad clearly exhibits all the typical hallmarks of conspiracy theorists (ideological rigidity, inability to tell good sources from bad, bizarre leaps of logic, quote mining, misunderstanding of science, etc.) but I think it's important to point out where and how he is wrong--even if he ignores it, others who come here might not.

Muertos:
You are attempting to obfuscate my statements. Typical of your poor forensic style.
1. I never said Al Gore started the AGW theory. His scientific knowledge is probably as low as yours. He has wildly exaggerated the claims and the conclusions of some scientists (sea level rise of 22 feet, ice cap total meltdown by 2020, Himalayan glacier meltdown by 2030, the recent snowfall a result of global warming, etc.) to create a panic so that his investments can pay off. If anyone says anything contrary to what AGW religious zealots and Al Gore says, you cry “denier”. You say he’s just a politician so, by your logic, he isn’t a fraud. What a tool. Once large investment businesses realized that CO2 could provide a vehicle to increase profits, if people thought of it as a pollutant, then political pressure was applied to create carbon trading. This was politically stated as a market method to reduce “pollution” even though the science was not robust. It has not reduced CO2 emitted into the atmosphere even in the countries where carbon trading occurs. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/11/business/worldbusiness/11carbon.html?_r=1 /> It has helped companies to ship manufacturing jobs to other, less pollution-controlled countries to the detriment of all of us because those countries allow real pollutants into the biosphere.
2. I never stated that there was not global warming in the 80’s and 90’s. The now ex-director of the CRU has admitted that there has not been any significant warming in the past 15 years and the past 10 years are trending cooler. The CRU was the premier center upon which all political and research bodies have depended on for their information on climate.
3. The panels and associations you mention are subject to political pressure. They have changed allegiance in the past just by getting a new president, not by scientific revelation. The past president of the National Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz, supported the Petition Project in 1998. He reviewed and approved the article that was circulated with the petition in August of 2007. The majority of the listed signatories signed or re-signed the petition after 2007. Dr James E. Hansen (NASA) sent an open letter to Barack Obama explaining to the President what a wonderful opportunity alarm about Global Warming is to engage in redistribution of wealth. Lots of science there. The IPCC (government is in the title so there may be a few politicians around) has admitted its 2007 report had exaggerations and is setting up a review panel as is the Indian panel. I expect a whitewash job so politicians can cover their asses but, who knows. They received the majority of their information from the now tainted CRU as did the rest of those panels. Garbage in garbage out. Since governments are by far the largest source of funds for scientific research and they seem to want a climate crisis, then by god that's what we'll get - despite the huge amount of evidence to the contrary.
4. I did not refute the AGW theory with a dictionary and remedial science knowledge. I tore your supposedly “scientific” paper to shreds with them. If you had bothered to read your own pathetic excuse for evidence supporting your own position, then you should have seen how bad it was, unless you are a mindless drone that just repeats what he’s told by his AGW priests.

Since you don’t know the basis of what your arguing for, I’ll explain it to you. I’ll write slowly so you can follow along.
The “science” behind the AGW hypothesis is that man-made amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere will block outgoing long-wave IR radiation from exiting to space and will thereby warm the surface. The popular model attempts to show all the flow of energy to and from the Earth, attempting to follow Kirchhoff’s laws, as if all the factors are known quantities. We are in the infancy of getting all the data necessary to understand all the processes that produce our climate due to natural variability let alone our influence on it. The theory started gaining traction around 1980 once it was apparent that temperatures were rising. Prior to that, some of the same “scientists” were claiming that we were heading for an ice age due to man-made pollution.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
The theory has problems.
1. Geological evidence points out that the level of CO2 presently in our atmosphere is considerably lower than it has been in the past without human interference. Higher levels of CO2 have been associated with more growth of all sorts of flora and fauna. Commercial greenhouses pay for increased CO2 environments yet some would have the valuable resource sequestered underground.
2. A valid theory should be able to predict future outcomes. Despite predicting in previous years that we would have no more snow in Europe and the U.S. after 2000, we have more. The level of CO2 has increased over decades yet we have not had significant warming for fifteen years and are now trending cooler. Predictions of increased number and strength of hurricanes have also proved false. The devastation of Katrina was due to levees breaking and flooding of habitat built on a flood plain, not because it was an unusually large storm. The loss of some of the Antarctic ice is minuscule compared to the build up of ice on the other side of the continent. The actual climate data collected over the last 20 years shows that warming had not exceeded the minimum warming scenario projected by the IPCC in 1991 or since then. Warming has consistently fallen below those minimum predictions.

Once the politics is removed from the debate, the facts are not favorable for CO2 being a pollutant or anything other than a benefit to life. If you think that CO2 is the big destroyer of our climate do you really think that increasing the cost of energy sources is the answer? You provide ad hominem attacks against anyone that doesn’t agree with your beliefs and point to a bunch of political hacks for guidance. All that proves is that you can’t think for yourself. Muertos cabeza might be a more appropriate moniker.
Have a nice day.

Brad, you make a number of spurious claims here. Let's look at them.

You said: "The now ex-director of the CRU has admitted that there has not been any significant warming in the past 15 years and the past 10 years are trending cooler."

Absolutely false.

You're referring to Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the CRU who stepped aside temporarily in December 2009, and I assume the "admission" you refer to is the hacked emails. In fact Jones had this to say about the emails and the data contained in them:

"Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Center in the United States, among others. Even if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results. The facts speak for themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them."

Hardly an admission.

You said: "The past president of the National Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz, supported the Petition Project in 1998. He reviewed and approved the article that was circulated with the petition in August of 2007."

Dr. Frederick Seitz has been a global warming denier since the 1990s. Curiously, his previous job was a scientific consultant for (drum roll please) the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco company. Seitz earned $585,000 for this work, which predictably found that there were no health effects related to secondhand tobacco smoke. He was also head of NAS in the 1960s, long before NAS began researching global warming. Seitz also worked at the George Marshall Institute, a conservative think tank originally established to drum up support for Ronald Reagan's SDI "Star Wars" project.

Isn't that curious, Brad? Yet another of your anti-AGW gurus is not only a global warming denier, but was paid by the tobacco industry to try to prove that tobacco didn't cause cancer. You can read about the curious overlap between the tobacco lobby and global warming deniers at this article: http://www.markhertsgaard.com/articles/187</p>

You said: "The majority of the listed signatories signed or re-signed the petition after 2007."

There's no way to know that, because the global warming denier think tank that sponsored the Oregon Petition refuses to release information on exactly who signed it. Here's an interesting statement regarding this organization and the petition:

"The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology." Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names." (Source: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Petition#Case_Study:_The_Oregon_Petition)

Nice. These are some of your 31,478 American scientists--B.J. Honeycutt and one of the Spice Girls. If this petition had any credibility, how come the organization sponsoring it doesn't do a better job of vetting it?

You said: "The IPCC (government is in the title so there may be a few politicians around) has admitted its 2007 report had exaggerations and is setting up a review panel as is the Indian panel."

Total mischaracterization of what's happened.

You're hitting us with another "admission" which I assume relates to the issue of the Himalayan glaciers contained in the IPCC report, which IPCC chair Rajendra K. Pachauri has said was incorrect data. The controversy focuses on the date 2035 which the IPCC said might be when the glaciers disappear. Curiously, various investigations have been done into this error and whether it affects the conclusions of the report. It doesn't. You can read an interview with Dr. Pachauri here in which he addresses these concerns: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/327/5965/510/DC1</p>

Yes, the IPCC is reviewing its work. It always does that. It will be coming out with a new report in 2014. That has nothing to do with "admissions" of "exaggerations."

You said: "I did not refute the AGW theory with a dictionary and remedial science knowledge."

You previously said: "In case you missed it, I got my definition of the second law of thermodynamics from a dictionary, not G & T’s paper. It is one of the most cited definitions of the second law of thermodynamics and the most experimentally obvious since Clausius stated it in 1854. G & T didn’t come up with the definition, they just followed the law."

So what you are positing is this:
1. The Second Law of Thermodynamics means heat cannot be transferred from a colder body to a hotter one, etc. You got this from a dictionary and/or Wikipedia.
2. G&T's paper merely stated and followed this law.
3. Ego, global warming is a hoax created by Al Gore.

That sounds to me like using remedial science to debunk global warming.

The best scientific debunking of G&T's theory is the very first link I posted, which is this paper: http://www.ing-buero-ebel.de/Treib/Hauptseite.pdf</p>

You said: "The level of CO2 has increased over decades yet we have not had significant warming for fifteen years and are now trending cooler."

Are we, now? How do you explain this, then? http://www.cobybeck.com/illconsidered/images/cru-2005.gif</p>

You said: "If you think that CO2 is the big destroyer of our climate do you really think that increasing the cost of energy sources is the answer?"

I never made that claim. You seem to be suggesting that anyone who believes the scientifically proven fact of anthropogenic global warming automatically supports a carbon tax. That's a political viewpoint. I don't support a carbon tax. Why did you even bring this up?

I think you hate Al Gore for some political reason. You've convinced yourself that AGW is a hoax designed to increase the value of his investments. Doesn't he have better ways to make money? You support your position by mischaracterizing one British court case, a petition signed by B.J. Honeycutt and the Spice Girls, and corporate-funded pseudoscience written by tobacco industry lobbyists. Do you really expect us to find your case credible based on these things?

Brad, you've lost this debate. We've been going around and around about this for months now. Only two posters in this entire 2-month-long thread seem to agree with you: Alphalifestyle (who started the topic) and Bang. The only things they had were CRU emails (which we've debunked) and Lord Monckton (also debunked). Consequently, both of them have gave up the ghost weeks ago but you're still out there fighting the good fight against those evil climate change people and Al Gore groupies, and using tobacco industry lobbyists and B.J. Honeycutt's petition as "evidence." I do have to say that I admire your tenacity, and your ability to resist facts that are unpleasant to your ideology.

Muertos:
You assume incorrectly. Dr. Phil Jones made the statements in in interview with the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm on February 13, 2010. He also stated in that interview that the warming periods of 1860-1880, 1910-1940, 1975-1998, and 1975-2009 are not significantly different from each other. The period from January 2002 to 2010 the trend is negative. If you want to assume something, you can probably assume that he didn’t lose or destroy that data so he had to come clean with those admissions. In case you don’t know, he is still under review by a Parliament Inquiry for possible criminal charges due to his failure to provide information and data under Freedom of Information requests and manipulation of data. Fortunately for him, the statute of limitations may let him off due to a technicality on the FOI charges. The Parliament is off on their spring break and will resume the inquiry soon, hopefully after they get an earful from their constituency. The CRU, the MET, and Hadley Centers are all under inquiry due to the malfeasance that has occurred. Since those are the premier sources for climate data that the IPCC and all other government and scientific bodies relied on, it is no wonder why the predictions of climate have been so far off.
The corruption of data is rampant and Europe is not alone in experiencing the manipulation of data. NASA combines the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) data with the Hadley Center data so their data is corrupted. The NCDC and GISS have been shown to have a large number of non-compliant weather stations for their data and have used unusual protocols for altering data. The NCDC and GISS has, over a 10 year period, modified their data by progressively lowering temperature values for older dates and raising more recent ones in an effort to equalize the difference between urban and rural temperatures. So we know that urban areas are heating up due to more concrete, blacktop, air conditioning use, cars, and jets. No sh*t. Some scientists use statistical manipulation without the use of someone qualified in statistics. Mann’s hockey stick graph is no longer used by the IPCC due to its apparent misuse of statistical reasoning. Mann claims that his software that made up his chart is his intellectual property and he wouldn‘t share it, which is against the tenets of the Scientific Method and even though his research was paid for by government research funds . That left no one able to confirm his results but, it was still used for years by the IPCC and Al Gore. The Wegman Report thoroughly showed its flaws. http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf<br /> You say Frederick Seitz was hired by R.J. Reynolds as a scientific consultant. He was the president of the National Academy of Sciences so we should never listen to what the that group says ever again. That is an example of an ad hominem argument which is always invalid in syllogistic logic - the core of deductive reasoning. You are trying to appeal to emotion, not facts. You may FEEL you have won an argument by your ad hominem attacks when all you have done is shown how illogical you are. I checked the list of signatories and did not find any that you listed. Some jokers might have temporarily gotten false names on the list which was only meant to show that well educated people weren’t buying the alarmist hype. You have not said anything about the list of over 700 (and growing) anti-AGW scientists collected by the U.S. Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee. Don’t have an ad hominem attack ready for them yet? http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9 /> Pachuari, the railroad engineer and chair of the IPCC, at first dismissed the argument against the Himalayan melt as “voodoo science” before admitting the error. The IPCC is not just reviewing its work, its reviewing all the procedures on how it gathers, analyzes, and reviews its data and reports.
One of the errors that the British judge ruled against Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” was that he stated that the sea level will rise 20 feet by the melting of glaciers mostly the Antarctic and Greenland but, alluded to all glaciers. The context of the movie was the near future and Al has stated different dates, while the IPCC (arguably not a good source but, you seem to like them) says sea level has risen 23 feet naturally in the past, over several thousand years. The IPCC upper estimate in 2001 was 3 feet over 100 years. The IPCC 2007 upper estimate is 1 foot 5 inches over 100 years which they are still refining. The IPCC in 2007 also estimates it may be from mankind’s influence 50/50. The Australians using the SEAFRAME tide gauge array found that over 50 years the sea level has gone up by about the width of a hair. The residents of Tuvalu won’t be getting a new home anytime soon.

What I am posting is:
1. One of the definitions (one of the oldest) of the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that heat can only be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body with the addition of energy. In over 150 years of testing, there has not been a reproducible experiment that has defied the definition.
2. G & T’s paper point out this and many more fallacies to the theory of CO2 being the cause of global warming. Since some scientists are looking for a layer of CO2 in the upper atmosphere where it is considerably cooler than the troposphere and unless they can find some mechanism that will add energy that causes heat to transfer from a cooler to a warmer mass, they are likely wrong. There may be some mechanism that does that but, it is not proven to be true. The theory of CO2 as a major contributor to warming is still a theory, not proven fact. It then has to be determined what part of it is due to mankind’s influence. Since you believe that http://www.ing-buero-ebel.de/Treib/Hauptseite.pdf is the best at debunking G & T’s paper, then perhaps you can explain what’s so great in English. Or are you being intellectually dishonest, in knowing German, to add to your logical discrepancies?
3. Al Gore did not create the theory of CO2 induced global warming. He’s too ignorant of science. He has wildly exaggerated claims some scientists have made so that his investments can pay off.

4. Your supposedly scientific paper was debunked with remedial science that any high school kid should know. You can’t determine what the actual surface area of the Earth is exposed to the Sun’s radiation so you can’t determine how much energy is absorbed to create heat. The amount of the Sun’s output that reaches the planet is not well documented over any great length of time.

If it weren’t the politically motivated call for carbon taxes, the debate over whether CO2 was a climate killer would be left to scientists alone, where it should be. You alarmists don’t know what the ideal average temperature of the Earth is. Do you prefer it cooler? Luckily for you it was Dr. Phil Jones of the CRU, keeper of the premier data sets for the planet’s temperatures for the IPCC and academic societies, that said that we have not had significant warming for fifteen years and are now trending cooler.
You may FEEL you’ve debunked the CRU emails etc. with your ad hominem attacks because few people on this forum have joined in against you but, the world at large is wising up to the fallacies of the AGW alarmism. You only have to look as far as that bastion of conservative thought, Penthouse, to see how long the rest of the world will put up with the stupidity.
http://penthousemagazine.com/features/an-inconvenient-fraud/<br /> Have a nice day.

here man most if not all of the debunkers are paid shills!!! They use political spin to take your mind off the real issues.!@.! They are very fucking good at it!!! ive looked at both sides, and ive a degree in chemestry! I may be dislesic but i know bullshit from truth........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqN2EKuXX2g

"and ive a degree in chemestry! I may be dislesic but i know bullshit from truth........"

Reminds me of the Zeitgeister who claims he has a great understanding of physics, immediately followed by "I am not delusional."

"He's talking in CT speak much more overtly than I've heard before."

You must not have heard Ron Paul speak very much.

As far as the video, I didn't watch it and now that I know Ron Paul's in it, I'm definitely not going to.

I don't claim to understand climate science, which is why I tend to just trust the opinions of climate scientists rather than whackjob politicians from Texas.

Edit: I almost forgot, fuck Ron Paul.

Hey... casey,

Are you a Creationist? Do you believe the universe and all life was create in 7 days about 6,000 years ago all at once?

You know I like how Global Warming Deniers throw he word "shill" around all the time without any evidence and yet when you show their experts are not just shills for the oil industry but were shills for the tabacco industry AND are such obvious liars they completely ignore it.

So the tobacco industry is behind the anti-AGW movement?

Wow you fail in your very first sentence!

What Muertos is saying is that it is interesting how so many Global Warming deniers were also working for the tobacco industry promoting the idea that smoking is perfectly safe.

It speaks to the credibility that you entrust in these guys.

You wanted to see more scientists against the AGW theory and I provided you one.

Except its a fraudulent list and you don't care.