Bottom line is that the fanaticism displayed by many of the Climate Change scientists, insisting that catastrophic consequences are looming, is something that is rightfully open to logical questioning. The sceptic is at the core of scientific process, any attempt to forcibly silence the sceptic is an affront to the process, and usually a sign of cracks in the theory that one so adamantly defends. Even Newton’s theories on gravity were later displaced by General Relativity. Certainly the murky models of climate change forecasting are rightfully subject to the same level scrutiny.

The person who wrote this particular article appears to see the world in black and white, at least when it comes to this topic. Spending significant effort to silence the sceptics, the critics, and anyone else who has any doubt about what is going to happen to the climate and why it is going to happen. Indeed, it could not be worse than a world consumed by flames.

For more informed arguments, everyone who has an interest in the topic of climate change should refer to this article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203646004577213244084429540.html?mod=googlenews_wsj#articleTabs%3Darticle

or search for “Concerned Scientists Reply on Global Warming”.

And Professor Singer agrees with that:

S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project. His specialty is atmospheric and space physics.

An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, more recently, as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmosphere.

In 2007, he founded and chaired NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change). Dr. Singer is the author of numerous books including Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years (co-authored with Dennis Avery) & Climate Change Reconsidered (co-authored with Craig Idso). His most recent writings can be found at American Thinker.

251: Scottar, I disagree with so much of what you said that it’s hard to know where to start.

But you should note that I have been deleting your past few comments because they have been invective and insulting. That violates the one single rule I have here: don’t be a jerk. If you cannot comment without violating that rule, then please take your ideas somewhere else.

I guess that answers the question. Short memory you have!

Phil:
“The claim that the Earth hasn’t warmed in 10 years is complete and utter garbage; I have posted on this several times. The people making that claim are cherry picking the data to make it look like warming hasn’t occurred, without looking at real trends. In fact, most claims like that from the denialist side are grossly misinterpreting data. ”

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2011-temps.html

NASA Finds 2011 Ninth-Warmest Year on Record

And look at the chart, it’s essentially flat for 2000 decade.

Extract from:

NASA Games- icecap.us

Jan 25, 2012

E-mail messages obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that NASA concluded that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia’s Climatie Research Unit (CRU)—the scandalized source of the leaked Climate-gate e-mails—and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center.

The e-mails from 2007 reveal that when a USA Today reporter asked if NASA’s data “was more accurate” than other climate-change data sets, NASA’s Dr. Reto A. Ruedy replied with an unequivocal no. He said “the National Climatic Data Center’s procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate,” admitting that some of his own procedures led to less accurate readings. “My recommendation to you is to continue using NCDC’s data for the U.S. means and [East Anglia] data for the global means,” Ruedy told the reporter.

Hansen seems to have a teflon coat. Despite all his failures (including predictions of the West Side Highway being underwater by 2010 made in 1980 – sea level rises are about 1 inch) and data issues, he escapes scrutiny.

Just to put some numbers to this global manipulation, here is a selection from Iceland the change since last year’sversion. Enhancing warming trend by cooling off the past.
Reykjavik (degrees C)

Year Last This Diff
1911 5.31 4.21 1.1
1941 5.28 4.09 1.19
1971 5.85 4.65 1.2
1991 6.12 4.92 1.2
2011 5.58 5.58 0

NASA was not alone. the 3 data centeres collaborated as the climategate emails suggest.

The CRU global records changed similarly.

The chart on icecap shows temperature bias manipulation after 1980

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Science_story.jpg

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CRU_Temps.jpg

They accomplished this ‘kockey sticking’ by cooling off old data and warming later data, in part through elimination of a UHI adjustment in the US. They also cooled ocean temperatures near the bothersome warm blip around 1940, The climategate emails included one by Wigley of UEA and later NCAR suggesting a cooling then of about 0.15C would be effective but still plausible.

This is like Obama trying to paint a rosy color on the economic picture by distorting the facts.

The fact is surface temps are not very good indicators of climate trend till you get solid good reliable records for a century or more. But since many stations here in the US and more so world wide have been sited for insite violations and intermittancy the best records remain some rural stations, balloon radio sonar and satellites, despite minor drift errors.

And here is the concern:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/abduss_APR.pdf

Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth

Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, Pulkovo Observatory of the RAS

Applied Physics Research Vol. 4, No. 1; February 2012

From the early 1990s we observe bicentennial decrease in both the TSI and the portion of its energy absorbed by the Earth. The Earth as a planet will henceforward have negative balance in the energy budget which will result in the temperature drop in approximately 2014. Due to increase of albedo and decrease of the greenhouse gases atmospheric concentration the absorbed portion of solar energy and the influence of the greenhouse effect It will additionally decline.

After the maximum of solar cycle 24, from approximately 2014 we can expect the start of the next bicentennial cycle of deep cooling with a Little Ice Age in 2055 plus or minus 11.

Evident that the sea ice is increasing not declining. The Arctic has stopped decreasing from the influence of the ADO-PDO oscillation. It’s just another ending of a cycle and another beginning. It’s buried in historical documents that MSS ignores.

You’re accusing me of deleting posts I don’t like? I assume you have solid evidence of that? And that you also understand the nature of automatic spam filters on blogs?

Otherwise, you’re starting to sound like a troll. And at the very least you are violating my one commenting policy. Either way, clean it up, or I will in reality start marking your comments as spam.

There where a couple of previous posts you censured and you know what I’m talking about.

Peer Review, no it’s Pal Review:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2011/06/16/peer-review-and-pal-review-in-climate-science/

I don’t know where you stand in it but it’s a factor, especially with the IPCC.

The scientists’ final draft of the 1995 Report said plainly, on 5 separate occasions, that no evidence of an anthropogenic influence on global climate was detectable, and that it was not known when such an influence would become evident.

However, a single scientist, Dr. Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, rewrote the draft at the IPCC’s request, deleting all 5 statements, replacing them with a single statement to the effect that a human influence on global climate was now discernible, and making some 200 consequential amendments.

These changes were considered by a political contact group, but they were not referred back to the vast majority of the authors whose texts Dr. Santer had tampered with, and whose 5-times-stated principal conclusion he had single-handedly and unjustifiably negated.

This is a constant theme with the consensus science groups board members. They don’t want scientists, they want ‘yes’ researchers.

“The claim that the Earth hasn’t warmed in 10 years is complete and utter garbage”

Depends on whose temp chart your looking at.

http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/01/nasas-research-substantiates-trend-towards-global-cooling-human-global-warming-from-co2-has-disappea.html

NASA’s Research Substantiates Trend Towards Global Cooling – Human “Global Warming” From CO2 Has Disappeared

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25940

Global Temperature And Data Distortions Continue

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog

Wednesday, November 09, 2011

NCDC Data Shows USA has not Warmed in the Past Decade, Summers are Cooler, Winters Colder

http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/cherries-are-not-the-only-fruit/

Sep 20, 2011
Cherries Are Not the Only Fruit

This came from a PDF file: It’s recent oand on the web

CONTIGUOUS U. S. TEMPERATURE TRENDS USING NCDC RAW AND ADJUSTED DATA FOR ONE-PER-STATE RURAL AND URBAN STATION SETS
by Edward R. Long, Ph.D.

What warming has happened has not showed up as a result of CO2 forcing, the alleged forcing is way out of line of actual increases, which show no acceleration over the last 2 centuries. Besides, the temperature data is heavily biased when you look at GISS graphs.

http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/01/cet-temperatures.html

I could go on with example after example but the reality is: You can shove the truth to the back of the closet, but sooner or later someones going to come along to clean out the closet and discover it.

Your denials are just awful Phil, ad hoministic, as is most of the rest of the AGW crowd, there’s money and power behind it.

And your “facts’ are completely wrong. The claim that the Earth hasn’t warmed in 10 years is complete and utter garbage; I have posted on this several times. The people making that claim are cherry picking the data to make it look like warming hasn’t occurred, without looking at real trends. In fact, most claims like that from the denialist side are grossly misinterpreting data.

The WSJ OpEd you quote is so bad, so awful, so wrong, it’s hard to believe someone could write it with a straight face. Plenty of other sites debunk it, so I haven’t bothered, but that “16 scientist” claim is also really disingenuous: only a couple are climate scientists, and the WSJ turned down an OpEd by 255 climate scientists stating global warming is real and human-caused. Now why would that be? If you guessed that the WSJ is hugely biased against reality, then you win.

And on and on.

Blah-blah-blah!

Hopefully Phil Plait won’t pull another RealClimate trick on me and this rebuttal gets printed intact.

Write a Peer review paper? Typical defensive crap from you fantasy land green necks. The problem is the peer review process has been hijacked by bureaucratic ‘Goldman Sacks wannabes’ who are after the money, not real science.

Did you not even look at the chart at http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/map-the-climate-change-scare-machine-the-perpetual-self-feeding-cycle-of-alarm/

Did you not visit this site with the non consensus peer review papers that show otherwise what the GravyTrainScientists consensus claims:

900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming (AGW) Alarm
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Proof, there’s tons of proof when you venture past the AGW clown sites:

http://antigreen.blogspot.com/

Notice how before the industrial ramp-up of emissions of 1940 the warming was just as steep and presently it has flattened out, even thought CO2 has risen over 18% over the past decade? We where suppose to be lucky to see snow again LOL!

Just last September, Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) over that organization’s climate change orthodoxy. In his resignation letter to APS, Giaever explained: http://www.climatedepot.com/a/12797/Exclusive-Nobel-PrizeWinning-Physicist-Who-Endorsed-Obama-Dissents-Resigns-from-American-Physical-Society-Over-Groups-Promotion-of-ManMade-Global-Warming

“In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.”

In the Wall Street Journal, a group of sixteen prominent scientists, including physicists, meteorologists and climatologists, come forward to express solidarity with Giaever, writing that:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

“…large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

So why do so many still cling to the hope of climate change catastrophe? The scientists offer their own view, again in the Journal:

“Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet.”

And that is what you AGWers fail to admit along with green renewable energy advocates. More seminary science and ad hominem then objective science. But those legislative clowns both in state and federal positions have made sure the pseudo science will persist as the science, industrial complex that Eisenhower warned against has become entrenched in so many factions of government. Too many, such as you, are drinking the koolaide.

“I think Phil Plait is half full of baloney if he can’t see the sun climate relationship and exaggerates the CO2 forcing effect. Especially when he calims (sic) climategate Is manufactured.”

So Phil is half full of baloney. That makes you completely full of it then, because if you really had a knock out full on megadestructive argument, that 100% battered AGW into submission you would have written it up into a scientific paper, gotten it peer reviewed and published and would now be basking in the warmth and limelight of a Nobel prize and much media interest. Instead you’re posting tired old denialist cut and paste arguments that have been posted many many many times before on this site.