Mark, as you know from my past comments, this is one of my favorite subjects. There is a new project that just commenced this spring that, IMO, is going to shed some valuable light on the accuracy of global surface temperature measurements. I believe the site is currently down because of excessive traffic, but, essentially, the project is an independent analysis of surface temperature measuring stations all over the globe. Really interesting stuff.

One has to remember, "this is settled 'science'."
The science has been presented by chief scientist Al Gore and that is that! So any thing presented post Al or his followers is not science and not allowed. Al has spoken.

Deleted - attacks the messenger

Yes, we all saw the link to this article on Drudge. Now let's sit back and wait for the 100 articles by other scientists refuting his assertions...

This happens all the time... Drudge will post a link to an article by some skeptic climatologist out of Zimbabwe or Oral Roberts school of Climate Research and the right goes crazy screaming, "SEE! SEE!". Then a day later, 100 articles by prominant climatologists and scientists come out refuting and debunking it.

Perhaps Professor Bob Carter from James Cook University in Northern Queensland Australia has finally discovered the irrefutable truth...

Not allowed to attack the messenger, huh? Funny, what about the constant refrain from you and your bushbot buddies about the MSM? You frequently discount critical stories solely because you don't 'trust' the MSM. Just earlier today you stated that MNF reporting, e.g., positive gov't coverage of Iraq, was more reliable than any other source, simply because the MSM has an agenda.

Clearly, we're past the point of debating whether or not you are a hypocrite. You are.

Now, I just want to know the level of hypocrisy. Is there ANY standard that you sanctimoniously apply to others that you yourself adhere to?

One can conclude that this Bob Carter is a scientist of little standing in the climate field, otherwise you would not put such a restriction on any discussion.

Canuckguy, Canuckguy, Canuckguy:

What a sneaky and dishonest way of attacking the messenger.

No Canuckguy, the censorship is on your side. You moonbats always censor the argument by blindly attacking the messenger and not even trying to address the message.

Our attempt, by deleting those tired, predictable and shopworn screeds is to engage in a dialogue about the substance of the message. We are tired of the immediate kneejerk reaction of "oh he is an oil industry stooge".

Deleted - attacks messenger

Not worthy of a comment.

Aaron,

Bob Carter has been extensivly published and in peer reviewed journals. You'd know that if you weren’t throwing out the tired old big oil meme.

Why not discuss his findings? Chicken?

I've been running the air conditioner full blast with the windows open. Despite what my mother, and then my wife said - it looks like it finally paid off.

You're welcome.

Aaron can't discuss the findings, it might actually grant legitimatcy to the anti-AGW side. He and his kind must attack the messenger, because the message is just to dangerous for them to touch.

Aaron,

You and "sourcewatch" both claim that Dr. Carter is a member of Australian Environment Foundation; other than making the claim, is there any proof to this connection? Neither the foundation nor Dr. Carter list any affiliation.

Same with Institute for Public Affairs, neither the institute nor Dr. Carter list any affiliation.

His actual memberships are:
American Geophysical Union
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of New Zealand
Society of Sedimentary Geology

Mark, Aaron is engaged in character assassination on the author of the piece and offers no proof nor does he refute nor discuss the content of the article in question. I believe by your rules his posts should be deleted.

Hey Dustbane:
Good example of thought control. You and the rest of the porcine characters on this Animal Farm are close in spirit to comunists regarding open discussions.

From an op-ed in "The Australian," written by Mr. Carter himself:

"Bob Carter is a geologist and founding member of the Australian Environment Foundation."

It's his own tagline. I guess that means he's associated with them.

Deleted - attacks the messenger

Thank you, amanda, I stand corrected on Australian Environment Foundation.

I still see no response to his assertions; do Enviro-zealots lack the capacity to discuss details?

If the doctor is such an easy target, how about some evidence of peer reviewed opposition to his conclusions.

canuck,
This is your idea of "open discussions"? Where's the discussion? All you've done is question the motives of the author and me. Now, considering I haven't stated a position I have to wonder what side of the argument you're afraid of.

Attacking the messenger is par for course for liberals who can not tolerate those with dissenting opinion. And of course they will tell you that AGW is fact, when of course it's far from it.

I found this over the weekend. Very interesting.

Reid Bryson, the 87-year-old considered to be the father of scientific climatology, has once again spoken out strongly against anthropogenic global warming theories being regularly disseminated by alarmists in the media and the scientific community.

"Don't make me throw up...It is not science. It is not true."

But Bryson had loads more to say on this issue (better fasten your seatbelts!): There is no question the earth has been warming. It is coming out of the "Little Ice Age," he said in an interview this week. "However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We've been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It's been warming up for a long time," Bryson said. Humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny, Bryson said. Just because almost all of the scientific community believes in man-made global warming proves absolutely nothing, Bryson said. "Consensus doesn't prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in democracy, maybe."

For the alarmists who love to depict every skeptic as being on the take of oil companies: Bryson, 87, was the founding chairman of the department of meteorology at UW-Madison and of the Institute for Environmental Studies, now known as the Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies. He retired in 1985, but has gone into the office almost every day since. He does it without pay.

How refreshing. Can the alarmists in the scientific community – and folks like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore – claim that they are doing their “work” for nothing?

Dasein -

"Bob Carter has been extensivly published and in peer reviewed journals. You'd know that if you weren’t throwing out the tired old big oil meme."

No one ever said Bob Carter has not published in scientific journals. To be a professor, he would have to be published. But he has not published any articles attempting to refute AGW. What I said was that if Mr Carter's assertions made in the Courier Mail denying AGW are as vitally important as he shrilly claims, then he should present those assertions along with his corroborating evidence for them to the scientific community in the form a submission to a peer-reviewed journal. If you look at the list of his published journal articles, none of them have to do with refuting anthropogenic climate change, denying global warming, or any of the other assertions he made in the Courier Mail op-ed.

"Why not discuss his findings? Chicken?"

The problem is that Mr Carter has not actually presented his findings. He has made undocumented assertions in a newspaper that have not been subject to review. That, I would say, is chicken. If he has the evidence that all this AGW is bunk, then why not submit that for review? He has published articles many times before (though none casting doubt on AGW), so he is obviously knows how the process works. Why doesn't he just publish his findings? Could it be that his data wouldn't stand up to closer scrutiny by actual experts, so he instead does op-eds in the popular media?

Do date, in all the considerable scientific literature published on the subject (about 1,000 journal articles since the mid-1990's), there has been not one single article that casts doubt on AGW. Mr Carter could change all that - if only he would submit his scientific research refuting AGW. If he has the solid evidence, then he should have no problem getting it published. Indeed, such a journal article would make him famous, and would perhaps be the most important scientific journal article published in recent decades. But he doesn't do that. Is he chicken?

The paper was presented at the Australasian Institute of Mining & Metallurgy, "New Leaders" conference, Brisbane, May 2-3, 2007 The publication is available on line at this .pdf. And before you ask, that's how many scholarly works are disseminated; at confabs and conferences.

When are you going to discuss the specifics?

You'll also find more research papers are submitted for peer review as doctoral dissertations and thesis than are submitted to Science Magazine.

When are you going to discuss the specifics?

...in all the considerable scientific literature published on the subject (about 1,000 journal articles since the mid-1990's), there has been not one single article that casts doubt on AGW. - airhead

The paper was presented at the Australasian Institute of Mining & Metallurgy, "New Leaders" conference, Brisbane, May 2-3, 2007

You'll also find more research papers are submitted for peer review as doctoral dissertations and thesis than are submitted to Science Magazine.

Airhead will be too busy trying to spin his way out of this excellent rebuttable to attempt to refute the specifics.

Brilliant Dasein!

Lisbane - can you list your qualifications for discussing climatology? Institutes which you attended - degrees obtained, research done? Look - unless any of us have any real qualifications to discuss this or have done any independent research on the matter that has been peer reviewed there is no point in this. No more point than there is us discussing heart surgery if we haven't been to medical school. The point remains - it is accepted amongst the vast majority of people in the field that this is most likely a major or partial cause to the global warming phenomenon. Time and time again when someone posts something like this - you go and do 5 minutes of research and you find out that the majority of research done that has concluded it is a natural phenomenon are funded by corporations like Exxon who have predetermined the outcome of their study by specifying that the grant money is given for research to show just that. So unless you have serious research - done by partial sources - and then we look at the evidence in totem - I don't see what the point of this is...

neo,
And yet they still refuse to discuss the merits of the article. I'm still ambivalent on the subject; I do feel it will somday be viewed as the Pet Rock of this generation. Especially considering the Climate Change Nazi's won't discuss the subject, only demonize anyone that dissents.

Spook had some of the best rebuttal to these arguments I've seen.

Oh, and kblack; shut the hell up!

I don't see what the point of this is...kblock

So now you want to see Daseins credentials? Where's your credentials?

This is just your attempt to try AGAIN to silence any attempt at refuting the "consensus" to AGW, because you have bought the myth; hook, line and sinker. And many AGW believers here discredit opposition by linking them to big oil. Well, many of those who support AGW are linked to big government. Wouldn't it be in their best financial interest to "tow the line"?

Also, tell me about Reid Bryson. He's been working for free since 1995.

Thank you for reminding me Dasein.

Spook laid them all to waste on that one. so Kblock, airhead, et al please click on the link Dasein provided; read spooks post and then

STFU!

neo,
Don't get drawn into kblockhead's world; she doesn't have an opinion; only disagrees with anything on this site, then does a Google to find some other blockhead that also disagrees. she still doesn't understand why.

Odd, they never mention that Big Oil contributes millions$ to Global Warming zealots, as well. Exxon spends $millions$ on Grants to the University I'm at and our Oceanographic College publish Global Warming papers all the time.

in totem WTF?????

Anthony Watts, who runs the project at the Surface Stations site that I linked to in an earlier comment now has a link to his blog in which he details (with photos) problems with a number of surface temperature recording stations. This project is just in its infancy, but already it's becoming clear that a significant number of surface recording sites have major problems resulting in gross overstatement of surface temperatures. Some of the siting problems with recording equipment are almost comical. Check it out.

i take your silence as a sign that you accept you are incorrect. Thanks!

Spook,

That is comical, but moreover a little scary.

Hard to believe that the AGW "Rocket Scientists" have figured this out yet.

Spook,

That is comical, but moreover a little scary.

Hard to believe that the AGW "Rocket Scientists" have figured this out yet.

i have no particular qualifications in climatology - which is why you don't see me posting cut and pastes from articles that I clearly don't understand. Mark does not seem to have a problem with this.

Exxon contributes millions to global warming zealots? Examples please

kblock,

Are you seriously saying that since Dasein may not have reputable climatology credentials, that that would make all of the oppositional posts to AGW invalid?

You can't be serious about that.

Because you do realize that in turn, unless you can provide reputable climatology credentials, all of you're posts would be invalid as well.

(of course I don;t pay them any heed anyway), but please answer.

kblack!
I just told you, moron! "This year the foundation will provide $13.5 million in unrestricted grants to colleges and universities. It has provided more than $170 million to over 1,000 institutions of higher learning since the matching gift program began in 1962."
Exxon Foundation Report

If you can't keep up, take notes!

kblack, if you really do have a PHD in physics (I still think that was a typo, and it's really phys-ed) then you continue to embarass yourself and whatever institution of higher education you attended with each additional post. Like Colin, you really need to take heed of the first rule of holes.

Neo and Bane, I've been following the Surface Stations site for a couple weeks. It just boggles the mind where some of the temperature sensors are located. Using the data from such stations in formulating climate models gives new meaning to GIGO.

Spook,
I'm sure they were burning trash in that particular barrel since the Little Ice Age.

Bane,

That was pretty funny. Without the photo I wouldn't have believed that anyone would position an official temperature sensor within 5 ft. of a burn barrel. As I said -- comical.

Spook,

Actually pretty sad; consensus was never part of the scientific method, but with dissent to the global-disaster funded orthodoxy pilloried to the exclusion of meaningful research, we will have to live with the political solutions our eco-overlords devise for us.

When they base their decisions on the information provided by the in-bred poodles that developed these climate stations we're all in for a world of hurt.

So now you want to see Daseins credentials? Where's your credentials?

neocon, don't be so hard on kblockhead--he's asserted, time and time again, that he has a PhD. However, in his case, it's Piled high and Deep! He's a phony!!!

keefer, based on Bane's reasoned analysis a few days ago, "he" is a "she". Not to sound sexist, because her gender really doesn't matter, but stupid by any other name is still stupid.

I think you misundercomprehended kblack; she didn't say she had a PhD in Physics, she said she got some PHud at her Physical. Zagnut bar, very tasty.

but with dissent to the global-disaster funded orthodoxy pilloried to the exclusion of meaningful research, we will have to live with the political solutions our eco-overlords devise for us.

I think that's the part of the equation that bothers me the most. At least in this country we still have the vote, but if the majority of the politicians sign on to the kookery, it won't much matter who we vote for. In the end, civil disobedience may prove to be a tool of last resort.

Right as rain, Spook.

If they came up with these methods of testing the climate, imagine what kind of "solutions" they can dream up.

Scientists attempt first manned flight to the dark side of the sun, “We’re going at night to prevent burn up as we pass the outer rings of the sun.”

“We theoretically increased size of the penguin until it was equal the size of a man; the penguins brain was still smaller but, (and this was key to all future research) the penguin’s brain was larger than before!"

I'll believe the global warming as caused by Man disciples when they can get a 5 day outlook for the weather right even 80% of the time.

when they can get a 5 day outlook for the weather right even 80% of the time.

80%? I'd be delighted with 50%. The funny thing is that climate models are patterned after meteorological models, only considerably more complicated and containing a significantly greater number of variables. The fact that the recent IPCC report predicted a rise in global temperature by 2100 of somewhere between 3 and 11 degrees F. reflects just how tentative their predictions really are.

Dasein -

"The paper was presented at the Australasian Institute of Mining & Metallurgy, "New Leaders" conference, Brisbane, May 2-3, 2007 The publication is available on line at this .pdf. And before you ask, that's how many scholarly works are disseminated; at confabs and conferences.

When are you going to discuss the specifics?"

Again, it is little wonder that Mr Carter would find an audience at a mining conference. Look, this is really very simple: why not submit the work for review in a scientific journal (instead of some industry rag or some industry conference)? Why does he have such a problem with that?

As for the "discussing the specifics", again, I am not a climate scientist. I am sure you would really rather hear what experts think about Mr Carter's assertions.

However, just from a cursory review, one thing that immediately leaps out from his contention that global warming "stopped in 1998" is that he explicitly fails to mention to his Courier Mail readers that 1998 was an El Nino year. Not only that, but it was the strongest El Nino ever recorded. I may not be a climate scientist, but I at least know that! And so surely does Mr Carter - why would he not tell readers that in his op-ed in the Courier Mail?

After the strong spike in the global mean temperatures caused by a strongest ever El Nino event in 1998, of course the temperature in the few years immediately afterwards will be lower relative to that event. Therefore, it is not at all surprising that if you selectively choose to measure from the El Nino peak in 1998 up thru 2005, you'll see the flat temperature "stasis" he so disingenuously speaks of. This is also known as cherry-picking.

You can see the 1998 spike caused by the strong El Nino in this temperature graph from NASA: data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif

When measured from the 1998 spike to 2005 you do indeed get a relative flat temperature trend (though not completely - eventhough 1998 produced the strong El Nino spike, 2005 was slightly hotter still!). However, the overall trend for the last century is clearly up. And I will bet anyone here money that the current El Nino will feature the highest global mean temps ever recorded, surpassing the spike from the last El Nino in 1998. Anyone care to take me up on that?

Now, you can argue as to whether the trend observed over the last century or so in the linked graph from NASA is statistically significant, caused by humans, etc etc. My problem is that Carter speficially picks the 1998 El Nino spike to then run an op-ed piece in which he says "accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998", without telling the reader that 1998 was a strong El Nino. That right there should set off alarm bells as what this guy is really up to.

It's also called lying by omission. And you don't even have to be a climate scientist to clearly see that.

Exactly, Spook. They cannot even accurately predict a hurricane two days out, yet we are supposed to believe that the even more complicated models can tell us the mean temp of the Earth in 50-100 years? Crazy.

"Now, you can argue as to whether the trend observed over the last century or so in the linked graph from NASA is statistically significant, caused by humans, etc etc. My problem is that Carter speficially picks the 1998 El Nino spike to then run an op-ed piece in which he says "accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998", without telling the reader that 1998 was a strong El Nino. That right there should set off alarm bells as what this guy is really up to."

Ah. So what you are saying is that the Earth causes temperature fluctions. Good to know.

Airhead,

Are you just completely ignoring Reid Bryson? Or haven't you found the proper information to completely discredit him?

Some more information on our friend Mr. Bryson:

His best known laboratory works are in development of new approaches to climatology, such as airstream analysis and quantitative, objective methods of reconstructing past climates. He has also developed computer models of climate: the past history of the monsoon in Rajasthan, model simulation of Pleistocene ice-volume and Pleistocene climatic history. He recently published a model simulation of the West African Intertropical Convergence position and rainfall for the past 20-40 millennia, and has now extended that work on high-resolution climate modeling to specific archaeological sites and in montane regions. He is also working on three books.

Also, a very interesting graph at the following site: Airhead, you may not want to see this.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1586

William Teach -

"So what you are saying is that the Earth causes temperature fluctions. Good to know."

I'm not sure what you mean by "fluctions". But what I am saying is that 1998 was an El Nino year that produced a temp spike over and above the overall underlying and increasing temp trend - and we know why this spike is there. Like all El Nino spikes, the couple years immediately following the spike will show a lower mean temp relative to the spike. Is that really so hard to comprehend?

In fact, that the trend measured from the 1998 El Nino spike to 2005 is fairly flat indicates that there must be a significant underlying warming going on. If there wasn't, the 7 years after the spike would not be flat, but instead would be greatly lower.

El Ninos are a process unrelated to CO2 warming that have been observed since the 1500's. They always produce a 1 to 2 year temp spike above whatever the current global mean is at that time. ie, if the current global mean temp is 55 degrees, an El Nino event might push it up to say 57 for a year. And if the global mean has been running at around 66, an El Nino might push the mean up to 68 for the year. Just look at the graph - you'll see the short El Nino spikes superimposed upon the overall longer-term upward trend. And make no mistake - that trend is definitely up.

Measuring from any particular El Nino spike to 7 years afterwards to then be able to say "see, no increase since then!", is extremely disingenous. Carter clearly knew what he was doing in cherry-picking 1998. His purpose is clearly to mislead. Wingnuts beware!

Measuring from any particular El Nino spike to 7 years afterwards to then be able to say "see, no increase since then!", is extremely disingenous airhead

So does everyone understand now? The fact that temperatures have not measurably increased in the last 7 years is proof that there is global warming.

I'll give you the stuff in "sandwich format," with scientific rebuttal links surrounding messenger shooting.

Here's one

Here's another one, from which I got the following:

Senator Minchin also referred Mr Kiernan to a critique of the economic review of global warming by Sir Nicholas Stern. One author of the critique was the retired James Cook University professor Bob Carter. Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community. He is on the research committee at the Institute of Public Affairs, a think tank that has received funding from oil and tobacco companies, and whose directors sit on the boards of companies in the fossil fuel sector.

Here's a good one, linked to by NASA-- the lead Headline reads: Arctic Spring a Month Earlier than a Decade Ago

In yet another indication of the abrupt and serious warming occurring in the Arctic, researchers have found that Arctic spring has moved a month earlier in only a decade [more]. "Rising temperatures are causing snow to melt sooner than before, extending the summer period and dramatically disrupting the fragile ecosystem... They recorded a clear shift in the time of year plants came into flower, birds laid their first eggs and insects and other creatures emerged to forage for food." Such patterns in the timing of annual biological and ecological events is called phenology [search], and these dramatic changes in phenology in an extremely short period of time reinforces the fact that something dramatic, awry and scary is happening with the Arctic's climate [search]. Changing phenology consistent with global heating is evident to a lesser extent around the world, as spring has generally advanced by 5.1 days a decade for animals and plants around the world, and 2.5 days a decade for European plants. In a geological or evolutionary time frame, these are amazinging dramatic and fast rates of change. And herewithin lies the greatest potential harm from human-induced climate change -- that ecosystems will simply be unable to respond fast or well enough to completely different climate regimes. Clearly the Arctic region's dramatic changing seasonality and loss of sea ice is the canary in the heatwave as far as indicating humanity and the Earth have a serious global warming problem that must be addressed strongly now.

Bob Carter's ExxonSecrets Factsheet

That's all I care to find right now; maybe I'll post more later.

Here's that link that doesn't work in my post

neocon -

"The fact that temperatures have not measurably increased in the last 7 years is proof that there is global warming."

Cute. Are you really this dense? Look, if you measure from 1997 to 2005, there is clearly a measurable increase in temp. And if you measure from 1999 to 2005, there is also a clear increase in the global mean temp. In fact, if you measure from any single year in the last 200 years up until 2005, there is clearly an increase in temp.

Up until 2005, the only year in the last 200 which did not have an appreciably lower temp was 1998 (although, even 1998 was in fact a little lower than 2005). And that's because 1998 temps had a temporary El Nino spike, which Carter doesn't volunteer to tell his Courier Mail readers. Obviously, he could never get away with such a disingenuous statement if he made it to scientists - but of course his real intention here is to mislead the general public, not contribute to science.

The libbies sure are working overtime here to convince us that temps have risen (which no one disputes) and to link that conclusively to mans undeniable contribution to it through CO2 emissions.

Despite the fact that I can post the names of over 14,000 scientists, all with various areas of expertise including climatology, that deny mans contribution and further deny the profit center and religion that has become the AGW movement.

Not too mention Dr. Reid Bryson. Who carries the following distinction:

Most cited climatologist in the world according to British Institute of Geographers article, 5th most cited physical geographer and 11th in list of all geographers.

And says the following:

In an interview published by Wisconsin’s Capital Times Monday, Bryson spoke about the money involved in this "religion," and when asked about soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" marvelously responded:

"Don't make me throw up...It is not science. It is not true."

At the root of the lefts contention of AGW and that man is responsible for it, is their exaggerated feeling of self importance. Many of them do not acknowledge a higher power instead believing that man is the be-all and end-all. Therefore, to them, it would stand to reason that anything they see as an anomoly, would of course have to be mans fault.

What they fail to realize is that physically we are but a speck of micro dust compared to the enormity of the universe. If the sun sneezed, we would be history. If a cosmic wind ensued, we would be history. If a comet merely a 1/2 mile in diameter entered the atmosphere (of which there are plenty floating around), we would be history. All of these threats exist in the universe which is tens of millions of years old. YET, in only 100 years, our CO2 emissions are destroying a planet that has withstood all of the above threats but is unable to withstand our CO2 emissions.

"What they fail to realize is that physically we are but a speck of micro dust compared to the enormity of the universe." - neocon.

That's right, neocon, and what they don't realize still yet, is the fact that, 'the enormity of the universe' sits in the palm of God's Mighty hand!!

And let me tell you, when He speaks, the winds and rains obey!!

Jeremiah

neocon,

Just curious, have you ever seen a sand storm out there?

Jeremiah

yes I have Jeremiah and they are something else.

An entire wall of sand hundreds of feet high sweeping across the valley. It's awesome.

Even more awesome are the monsoons!

neocon and the other "CO2 is good" people...

I have a mission for you to prove the benefits of Carbon Dioxide. Pull your car in to your garage, close the door, and turn on your car. The test should take a couple hours. The future of science depends on you taking this test!

That should read "leave your car on" for you nit pickers out there...

An entire wall of sand hundreds of feet high sweeping across the valley.

WOW! I'd like to come' see that!!

Something else too that interests me, I've heard it said that, In daytime in the desert, it gets hot, which is natural due to the barren ground, but then it gets near freezing at night, is this true, or if so, why does it get so cold at night?

Jeremiah

Ran out of arguments, so you decided to throw out the "liberals are godless" card... nice...

Rana,

Well, most of you are...you know; Godless.

And I haven't seen an actual refutation of the assertions made.

In case you missed it.

It was in my original post. The author systematically debunks a lot of the tactics that "contrarians" (a term used by Chris Mooney) routinely use. Perhaps you should read the links before you discount their validity. neocon did that on another thread, and it made him look foolish...

Ran out of arguments, so you decided to throw out the "go kill yourselves, neocons" argument, eh, Rana?

Typical compassionate liberal. Snicker.

If global warming is happening, what are you going to do about it? It is primarily a natural function, which has happened time and time again.

And just for factual relevance, Rana, without CO2, there would be no life on Earth. Try reading a 3rd grade science book.

William, in his/her example of the car in the garage, I think Rana got Carbon DIoxide and Carbon MONoxide confused.

William, in his/her example of the car in the garage, I think Rana got Carbon DIoxide and Carbon MONoxide confused.

Spook, you beat me to that, thanks.

I have a mission for you to prove the benefits of Carbon Dioxide. - Rana

And this is someone trying to convince us about AGW?

Good news, no one has to read Rana's source; the author is Tim Lambert, a computer geek with no training in climatology, who works for the University of New South Wales which receives major funding from EXXON!
Note: scroll down to this statement; "The series is published with the support of the Exxon Foundation"

Aaron,
"Unlike GCM scenarios, the results are consistent with the observation that global average temperature peaked in the El Nino year of 1998 and has remained static or slightly declined since" R M Carter.

2002-2003 was also an El Nino year. Hear that rushing sound? There goes your El Nino theory ....

Dasein -

yes, but when are you going to address the specifics?

You whined and moaned all day long for me to address what Mr Carter wrote. So I finally did - and now you have nothing to say.

So what do you think about Carter breathlessly holding up that global temps did not rise when measured from 1998 to 2005, while not volunteering to his readers that 1998 was a strong El Nino year? Obviously, such a disingenous and purposeful omission smacks of intent to mislead. Such an omission would never survive scrutiny by scientists, which is probably why Carter doesn't submit this "work" to peer-review.

Dasein -

"Unlike GCM scenarios, the results are consistent with the observation that global average temperature peaked in the El Nino year of 1998 and has remained static or slightly declined since - RM Carter"

Please. Mr Carter did not mention anything at all in his op-ed cited here by Mr Noonan as evidence that "Global Warming Ended in 1998". He only begrungingly mentions that 1998 was an El Nino year in his talk to the Mining industry you cite here because he has been catching so much hell about misleadingly choosing to measure from the peak.

Go look at the Courier artcle again - right after making the claim that "no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998", he makes no mention at all of El Nino. None in the entire article. Why? Because his entire purpose is to mislead the bleating sheep.

And not only was 1998 an El Nino - a fact he conveniently doesn't tell his non-scientist readers - but it was the strongest El Nino ever recorded. The 2002-2003 event was tiny by comparison - certainly not strong enough to pierce the abnormally high temp levels Carter misleading uses as his starting baseline in 1998.

Any way you cut it, there is only one reason to specifically choose the 1998 El Nino spike as your baseline from which to measure the "trend" - and that is to be able to make the misleading statement "Global Warming stopped in 1998". That was what he wanted to say a priori - as kblack points out, he knew what conclusion he wanted to come to before choosing the dataset that would best fit that conclusion.

Face it - the intent was clearly to mislead.

Aarontime, wasn't 2006 an El Nino year also? Thats the way the GW nuts explain away the lack of hurricanes last year. So by your logic, shouldn't 2006 have been much much hotter than 1998? Hmmm....

If all the liberals would just stop driving eating and breathing the whole global warming thing would fix itself. Its your selfishness that makes this problem persistent.

Aaron,
Since you've never attended college I'll help you; most scientific studies are presented for peer review at sessions, confabs and conferences. Often they’re presented by Academies and Universities at regular meetings of academicians. Here are some examples of recent breakthrough science not published in Science Magazine:

A. Bellosi & R. Berget, "Pulsed Magnetic Fields: A Glimmer of Hope for Patients Suffering from Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis,"Second World Congress for Electricity and Magnetism in Biology and Medicine, 8-13 June 1997, Bologna, Italy.

B. Maharishi's integrated system of education: Offering excellence in American education.~ In Proceedings of the hearing before the Subcommittee on Education, Arts and Humanities of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, United States Senate, Ninety-Eighth Congress, First Session, on Examination of the Report of the National Commission on Excellence in Education, 22 September 1983, pp. 522-531. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1984.

C. Progress Being Made on Artificial Pancreas ~ Presented at ADA Scientific Sessions in Orlando, Florida

D. Review of the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Studies (2006) ~ Presented to National Research Council (NRC) and Royal Society of Canada (RSC)

Aw, gee, I could go on but what’s the point? If it isn’t printed in your TV Guide it isn’t serious scientific research. Right?

And why are you stuck on the newspaper article? I thought you only discussed scientific peer reviewed serious submissions? Like the paper I quoted above? You are trying to mislead the readers here that Dr. Bob didn’t consider El Nino in his calculations which is clearly not the case, as I quoted above.

" because he has been catching so much hell about misleadingly choosing to measure from the peak."

Whoopsie, the newspaper article was June 2007; and the submission for peer review was May 2007 before the newspaper article.

Dr. Bob discusses the El Nino effect in his presentation, even pointing to the error in the GW zealots calculation by not considering the 1998 El Nino. So, take your El Nino argument out and what have you left?

Dasein -

"So, take your El Nino argument out and what have you left?"

So, take out 1998 out as a starting baseline, and what do you have left of Mr Carter's statement that GW stopped? Answer: nada.

jbiccum -

"Aarontime, wasn't 2006 an El Nino year also? Thats the way the GW nuts explain away the lack of hurricanes last year. So by your logic, shouldn't 2006 have been much much hotter than 1998? Hmmm...."

We are currently at the tail end of a moderate El Nino which did indeed start last year. And guess what? 2006 was in fact hotter than 1998. In fact, 2006 was the warmest year on record thus far. And 2007 will probably surpass that, given the fact that the peak in global mean temp lags a few months behind an El Nino event.

Now, you can dispute the statistical validity and methodology of global mean temp measurements. That is something that Retired Spook has a lot of information about. But Mr Carter is using the mean temp data to say "look, there was no warming between 1998 and 2005", and then tells his readers in the general public that this shows global warming has stopped.

At best, it is silly to even talk of a "trend" that consists of looking at any span so short as 7 years. At worst, it is purposefully misleading to start with 1998 as your baseline. That right there should tell you something about Mr Carter.

" 2006 was the warmest year on record "

Whoopsie, Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2006 was the fifth warmest year in the past century. The five warmest years since the late 1880s, according to NASA scientists, are in descending order 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2006. Credit: NASA.

"take out 1998 out as a starting baseline, and what do you have left of Mr Carter's statement that GW stopped? :

1998 isn't the baseline, "Combined annual land surface-air and sea surface global temperature anomalies (°C) for 1980 - 2005 relative to a 1961 - 1990-average baseline (data from Climate Research Unit,University of East Anglia). Though a warming of perhaps 0.3°C is recorded between 1980 and 1998 (a marked El Nino year), no warming has occurred in the seven subsequent years despite continued large increases in human-sourced atmospheric carbon dioxide."

What have we left?
"[]the slope and magnitude of temperature trends inferred from time-series data depend upon the choice of data end points. Drawing trend lines through highly variable, cyclic temperature data or proxy data is therefore a dubious exercise. Accurate direct measurements of tropospheric Global average temperature have only been available since 1979, and they show no evidence for greenhouse warming. Surface thermometer data, though flawed, also show temperature stasis since 1998. This pattern is not what is portrayed in the daily news media."

Dasein -

"Whoopsie, the newspaper article was June 2007; and the submission for peer review was May 2007 before the newspaper article."

Whoopsie, Mr Carter had been peddling the "global warming stopped in 1998!" nonsense in various public fora for some time before the article Mark Noonan links to here.

And get it through your head, Dasein - the paper you cite that was presented at the mining and metallurgy conference was not submitted for review for publication in a scientific journal. Papers are often presented at conferences, yes, but the bar there is much lower. Many of those conference papers are never accepted for publication in a scientific journal. And bear in mind too that if Mr Carter indeed had the sound evidence that AGW was bunk, that would rank as one of the most important journal articles in decades Certainly it would be something worthy of submission to not just any journal, but to the most prestigious journal he could possibly find, and one that preferably publishes lots of climate science. Sorry, a mining conference just won't do for the supposedly the earth-shattering claims Mr Carter is making.

"And why are you stuck on the newspaper article?"

Uh, because Dasein, that's the freakin subject of Mark Noonan's post! Noonan, like a lot of sheep in the general public, latched onto this newspaper article, and then gleefully came here to make a post entitled "Global Warming Ended in 1998!"

It is in the realm of public opinion that the oil industry is waging the fight to obscure and deceive - and that is precisely what Mr Carter is doing in the newspaper piece Mark is apparently titillated by. Do you condone the type of underhanded, purposely deceptive tactic Carter uses in his op-ed? Sure, he mentions the El Nino in a more professional forum simply because he knows he would get slaughtered there if he didn't. But the non-scientific general public, who may not be aware of the 1998 spike (not that Mr Carter would volunteer to tell them), is much easier to manipulate.

And make no mistake about - his intent was obviously to manipulate the public. Look, you can make lots of arguments calling into question how much warming is actually going on, how much human activity may be contributing to it, what impact the increase in temps may eventually have, how the data is collected, and on and on. I don't have a problem with that. Retired Spook, for example, does a good job of making a good faith effort at discussing these very issues. But I have absolutely no patience whatsoever with toad like Mr Carter who is so demonstrably practicing to deceive.

Dasein -

"1998 isn't the baseline"

Oh really? Mr Carter speficially makes the assertion in his shameless newspaper article that:

First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998.

You might also want to inform Mark Noonan that "1998 isn't the baseline", because the title of his post here is "Global Warming Ended in 1998". Gee, I wonder where Mr Noonan got 1998 into his head?

You keep wanting to go back to a paper Mr Carter presented at the mining and metallurgy conference, and not the one Mark writes about in his blog post. Fine. But what is obviously going on here is that Mr Carter makes certain claims when he is talking to the general public, and then makes different ones when he is talking to a more informed audience that might include scientists.

Look at the NASA global mean temp graph published here:

data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif

... and then look at what Carter says about that data when he talks to John Q Public. Then tell me his statement, trumpeted here by Mr Noonan, isn't purposely deceptive.

Dasein -

"Whoopsie, Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2006 was the fifth warmest year in the past century. The five warmest years since the late 1880s, according to NASA scientists, are in descending order 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2006."

I stand corrected then. So what you're saying, then, is that 2005 was actually slightly hotter than 1998, despite the fact that 1998 featured the strongest El Nino ever". Where does that leave poor Mr Carter's lamely disingenous statement that the global mean data shows no warming trend between 1998 and 2005?

hmmm, and so 4 of the 5 warmest years on record have all happened in the 2000's?

OK, Dasein, so I was off about 2006 being the warmest ever. Here's what I propose: I'll bet you any amount of money that when the data are compiled early next year, that 2007 will be the warmest year ever recorded. Care to take me up on that bet?

So much for Mr Carter's "temperature stasis".

I guress you don't know what "baseline" means. Sorry, I thought I was talking to an informed individual; go look up "baseline" and come back, I'll wait.

"Mr Carter had been peddling the "global warming stopped in 1998!" nonsense in various public fora (sic) for some time before the article Mark Noonan links to here” " Now you’re just making that up, since he published his paper in May 2007 and wrote the Op-ed in June.

You ascribe to Dr. Bob some nefarious intentions to deceive yet he has published his research in a very public place subject to very public peer review and the only dissent is from a computer tech that receives funding from Exxon! Dr. Bob receives no research funding from special interest organizations such as environmental groups, energy companies or government departments. The article you seem fixated on is a distillation for public consumption of the research he presented a month before. You have challenged his findings with respect to the newspaper op-ed, but have no challenge to his findings in his academic paper. Let me remind you that the Mann Hockey Stick paper was not published in Scientific American, it was presented at the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on climate Change. Since then it has been discussed, and debunked in all manner of periodical. But, we should discount it because it wasn’t first “published” in USA Today?

In the realm of public opinion, AGW zealots are waging a campaign of junk science, misinformation, and guilt by association, scare tactics and mixing it up with genuine scientific research. All with the intent to deceive.

Check your tables again, NASA lists 2005 as "virtually tied" with 1998, even if I assume 2005 was higher and if I take them at their word, the temps went down in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2006. stasis!

And okay, I'll take that bet, $100 to the charity of my choice.

Dasein -

"Mr Carter had been peddling the "global warming stopped in 1998!" nonsense in various public fora (sic) for some time before the article Mark Noonan links to here” Now you’re just making that up, since he published his paper in May 2007 and wrote the Op-ed in June.

No, I'm not making that up. The June 2007 article is recycled crapola Carter has dumped on the public many times before. Check out his article published in the daily Telegraph in April, 2006 (ie, more than a year before the mining conference), entitled "There IS a problem with global warming...it stopped in 1998":

www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

In addition, Mr Carter has written several other articles - all in newspapers - peddling the shamelessly deceptive "No uptrend since 1998" nonsense. Many of these articles are in turn cited on Fox News. So yes, Mr Carter has been making that intentionally misleading charge in public fora for some time. (and btw, "fora" is a plural form of "forum" - so you know where you can stick your "sic").

"And okay, I'll take that bet, $100 to the charity of my choice."

You're on baby.

btw, Dasein -

If you search through that Telegraph article entitled "There IS a problem with global warming...it stopped in 1998", guess how many times Carter volunteers to tell his non-scientist readers that the year he chose as the starting point for his "trend" - 1998 - featured a strong spike from El Nino?

Answer: 0.

An unintentional oversight? If you believe that, then I've got some swampland in Florida to sell you (if you can afford it after losing the $100)

Airhead, maybe you should check out how we measure those temps. Kinda ridiculous. I think you will agree if you bother to read this:

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

[Bookmarked]
I'll hold you to that; I deal in statistics, it's a safe bet that 2007 won't be "the warmest year ever recorded" But, just to be safe, let's define the terms.

Shall we use Golden Gate Weather Services, NASA, NOAA, or Hadley Centre?

And what constitutes the "warmest year" median temperatures, surface temperatures, oceanic mean, and aggregate North-South Hemispherical or satellite measurements?

And when you say “ever recorded” do you mean “since 1880? Or are you referring to all methods of testing global temperatures? In which case, we’d have to have one helluva summer to beat the Medieval Warm Period.

jbiccum,
Quit it! I'm trying to pin him down to one set of values. When he's wrong he'll cry "foul" and claim that the Piedmont School for Weather Tarts published the definitive paper on Global Temperatures in the East Southampton Journal of Scientific Stuff.

Sorry Libsbane. I gotta say this though. On that site I mentioned pay close attention to the last of 10 temp sites. It shows what a non-biased sensor reads that is 50 miles away from a biased one. Night and day.

I think we need to review these temp sites and make sure that are not biased. This is too important to leave up to incompetant people, who think the debate is over.

Aaron,
Guess how many times he mentioned algore?
Answer -0-
I guess Algore is as irrelevant as El Nino.

jbiccum,

Now, you know that they were burning trash during the Little Ice Age in Merced, and the dog poop bags are thicker during El Nino; so the "scientists" have it all covered; this is reliable information!

I'm tellin' ya' this will be the Pet Rock of this generation; meantime, I can get Aaron to donate $100.00 to ARMPAC ~ it's all worth it.

Teach-

You know, there can be too much of a good thing... in fact, you can die from drinking too much water. Funny little historical note, the crew of Apollo 13 almost died because they were breathing in... too much Carbon Dioxide (they didn't, thank God).

I realize that it's not the CO2 in car emissions that kills people (its the Carbon Monoxide), however, all of the major industrial processes that cause CO2 also cause CO (as a product of partial combustion), so where there is CO2 being produced by industry, there is Carbon Monoxide. Reducing emissions of one reduces the other...

Anyone want to dispute the health effects of air emissions? In fact, poor air quality has cost the city of Atlanta $1.67 billion per year in doctor's visits, lost wages, and lost productivity (from my Ecology notes).

Perhaps there are more reasons than just AGW to cut back on emissions...

Frog,
Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.

JB,

That's the site I linked to earlier in this thread. Fascinating, isn't it? Particularly, as you note, completely different trends/readings in sites 50 miles apart. If the project continues to identify a significant number of badly sited and configured recording stations and the MSM picks up on it -- Katie bar the door. Algore's stock is gonna plummet.

I guess Algore is as irrelevant as El Nino.

Even less so, I'd say, heh, heh.

Frog, Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.

Bane, is Rana really our old buddy, Georgia Frawg in disguise? I thought the writing style sounded familiar, andd, of course, there was the reference to UGA is a recent post.

Hmm, Rana and Frawg?
Well, Rana means Frog in Spanish, and they're both students, sophomores I'd guess by the wise-fool paradigm. But, Frawg always knew the first rule of holes, Rana hasn’t learned that lesson yet.

But, there's nothing Quixotic about Georgia, am I right Rana?

Gotta love global warming threads. Reminds me of the marathon Monopoly games we played in the fraternity house in college where you might buy in and out of a game several times over the course of a couple days. (Yes, of course we played for MONEY.)

ugg - Disdane - no I mean proof of what you said. Sure Exxon also gives money to legitimate research - that is research whose outcome isn't already predetermined. But thats very very different than giving it to "global warming nuts".

If stopped for a second to think before speaking you would realize this. I read all your comments - but you are simply so incredibly wrong and out in right field that you don't even notice that your "facts" don't support your position...

I never hid that I am frawg; in fact, there was a discussion about it when I first changed the name.

I am not, however, familiar with the "first rule of hole"; I can say that I am more antagonistic toward the two status quo parties because of what I see as a resurgence of idiocy. I am actually a rising Junior in college, and I do actually study economics, which is probably why I don't buy the supply-side tripe of tax cuts being a silver bullet.

There are tons of things that are Quixotic about Georgia. It's run, much like the nation, by ideologues (both the Republicans and the few Democrats who get elected) who fight for a lofty utopia instead of what actually works for most Georgians. That's pretty much the definition of Quixotic.

Just so I don't have to answer it later. Frogs are my favorite animals , Quixotic is derived from one of my favorite literary characters and stories of all time, and I briefly studied Spanish.

Oh, about CO2 not being a pollutant... Just as water isn't a poison in manageable quantities, CO2 isn't bad unless there's too much of it, considering breathing it in in large quantities is generally bad (unless you like brain damage). Funny thing, we would be able to dump more CO2 into the air if we didn't deforest to the extent that we have.

Oh, and do a search on Carbon 13's increased presence in the atmosphere, it's pretty interesting stuff (I would have to copy a large portion of my Ecology notes in order to explain it myself). It boils down to a certain isotope of Carbon being present indicating that a certain amount of CO2 was verifiably (I think that's the right spelling, so sue me) put there by humans.

Rana, sorry I apparently missed the thread where you explained about the name change.

I'm a big frog fan too, as is my granddaughter. We have a number of frog statues, sculptures, pictures, etc. around our house, as well as a pond behind our house with some monster frogs. My granddaughter has over 50 stuffed frogs in her bedroom.

Back in the late 90's my daughter had just gotten divorced, and she and my granddaughter, who was around 4 at the time, were living with us. One summer evening we were eating dinner and the bull frogs in the pond starting "talking" to each other. My granddaughter asked me if we could go down after dinner and see how they made "that noise". When we got down to the pond, we discovered two large bull frogs mating. Now I assume, if frogs are your favorite animal, you've probably seen them mate. I never had, and when my granddaughter asked, "Grandpa, WHAT are they doing?", I could pretty much see that anything I said was going to get me in trouble. After considerable thought, I finally said, "I think they're hugging," to which she replied, "no, I think they're doing the wedding dance." I was carrying her because she didn't have any shoes on, and I laughed so hard I almost dropped her in the pond.

Just thought I'd brighten your day with a little humor.

BTW, here's an article that might be of interest to you. It's my understanding that the first commercial cellulosic ethanol plant has opened or is about to open right in your back yard (in Georgia).

Oh, and, BTW, Rana, the first rule of holes is "when you're in one, stop digging."

Disdane ....but you are simply so incredibly wrong and out in right field that you don't even notice that your "facts" don't support your position... - kblack

And then kblock proceeds to offer the following unsupported facts: ZERO.

Bane is kicking airheads arse and I am enjoying it immensely!!!!

It appears that the liberals take up the old criminal code when confronted with opposing evidence: Deny, deny, deny.

Neo, kblack may get to China the short way, heh.

Speaking of China....

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2106689,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

China is now the largest producer of CO2!

China produced 6,200m tonnes of CO2 last year, compared with 5,800m tonnes from the US. Britain produced about 600m tonnes.

Oh...and they are EXEMPT from Kyoto.

It's time to ban all sodas. How much CO2 is released every time a canor bottle is opened? How much soda does America consume and how much is being released through container openings and belches?!?

We need to capture these errant gases...similar to the mechanism used to capture the old refrigerant in automobile air conditioning systems.

Or we need a substitute, for the carbonation in soft drinks.

Any takers?

I missed the Rana/Frawg connection? I know what it is; Frawg was a sophomore and now Rana is a junior, congrats Rana; remember what Jim Valvano said; "Don't give up ... don't ever give up."

My daughter is also a Junior; over her college career she’s asked me a number of questions; points of confusion her teachers cannot or will not clear up. Because the classroom is not a place where the free exchange of ideas takes place, she is indoctrinated with liberal philosophy and must come up for air occasionally.

One example you alluded to; Keynesian Economics. Like communism academicians insist that it’s optimal theory, and like communism it isn’t the fault of the theory that it never worked; it’s the people that tried it were flawed.

Here’s the advice I gave my daughter; If you want the sheepskin agree with the teachers; if you want the truth read Milton Friedman.

Still waiting for Aaron to set the rules for the challange.

Oh, and kblack, shut the hell up, ignorant slut.

Spook-

Thanks for the article, it was interesting stuff. Glad to hear that we aren't putting all of our ethanol hopes into Corn. Actually, the UGA ecology department is doing work on, among other things, sustainable agriculture and prairie cultivation practices. It's a fun little intersection of ivory tower concepts with things that may actually work in the future.

Dasein-

I think that you may have confused my discussion of interest rates with actual support of Keynesian Economics. I'm not really that much of a Friedman either; I guess that I am trying to figure out what I actually support, but I don't particularly support any of the major schools of economic thought, merely because they are only relevant in certain periods of times. Keynesian economics went into style during the New Deal Era, when government intervention was needed to help bring the country out of recession; Friedman's monetary theories became relevant during the 1970's when inflation was high, partially due to overzealous government policies. In my opinion, subscribing to on overarching political or economic theory robs you of the flexibility that you may need in order respond to different situations that may rise. You can have a general theory that you may identify with, but if you dogmatically follow a certain line of thinking, you blind yourself to other possibilities of right action.

Oh, and I changed to this name little before midway through my sophomore year.

ah Mark - nice delete the fact tact that he is a oil company hack.. Can't stand the truth- Just delete it. Another day of Mark Noonan!

Poor Ol' Paranoid Kblack! LOL!

Jeremiah

Rana,
Keep plugging away; econ is more about theory and less about reality. Predictions are always “qualified” and results are always “analyzed.” I look forward to our next encounter.

“I am woman, hear me whine.” Kblack

I dunno... thinking that simply manipulating monetary policy can fix the economy seems to over simplify things to a major extent. Then again, when they teach you new concepts, they always "hold all other factors equal."