TCS Daily


The Real News About Mann-Made Global Warming

By Roy Spencer - June 28, 2006 12:00 AM

Last week's release of a National Academies of Science (NAS) report entitled "Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years" was the result of a congressional request to look into the controversy surrounding the now-famous "hockey stick" temperature curve. The media portrayed the findings of the NAS review panel as some sort of new statement about how warm the Earth is at present, and totally missed the real news: that the original claim of Mann et al. of unprecedented warmth in the last 1,000 years -- based mostly upon tree ring data, especially from the southwest U.S. -- was dubious at best.

For the last several years, the hockey stick has been a poster prop for manmade global warming. For instance, it figures prominently in Al Gore's new movie, "An Inconvenient Truth." But the statistical and data analysis methods that Mann et al. used to arrive at their 1,000 year temperature reconstruction were strongly criticized by some. The hockey stick played down the warmth of the "Medieval Warm Period" of 1,000 years ago, as well as the later coolness of the "Little Ice Age."

Also, the uncritical acceptance of the hockey stick for inclusion in the U.N.'s Third Assessment Report on global climate in 2001 gave many scientists the impression that the editors of that report wanted to believe the hockey stick more than they were convinced of its validity.

In their attempt to not publicly scold Mann and his coauthors for questionable data analysis methods, the authors of the new report instead chose to restate the evidence for how warm the Earth has gotten recently. What the media didn't notice, however, is that the 1,000 year figure that was central to the whole hockey stick debate had now been replaced in the report by a figure of 400 years. Since most of the last 400 years was dominated by the "Little Ice Age," the warming during the 20th century should be welcomed by humanity.

The report says that surface temperature reconstructions before this period (about 1600) have "less confidence" and that "uncertainties...increase substantially backward in time..." for any of these proxy estimates of ancient temperatures. One review panel member told me that the statisticians on the panel were amazed when it was revealed that the method underlying the hockey stick had essentially no statistical skill when validated.

This is pretty harsh language for an NAS report written by review panel members, several of whom are equivalent to foxes guarding the hen house. Researchers who have bought into the validity of using proxy measures for ancient climate reconstructions aren't about to throw away the "best" method the paleoclimate research community has, even if it can not be validated with real temperature measurements (the thermometer was not even invented until the 1600's).

One rather amazing characteristic of the hockey stick is the so-called "divergence problem": the strong warming in the late 20th century is not even indicated in the tree ring data that were used to reconstruct the last 1,000 years of supposed temperature variations. Much of the 20th century warming (the blade of the hockey stick) represents real temperature measurements, not tree ring reconstructions, since they don't show the warming. This raises a natural question, which the panel shrugged off: If tree rings do not show the strong warming of the late 20th century, how do we know there wasn't a similar temperature spike 1,000 years ago?

Keeping the door open to the possibility that Mann might be right anyway, the new report says that it is at least "plausible" that we are warmer now than anytime in the last 1,000 years. But this is a much lower level of certainty than has been associated with the hockey stick by the media, bureaucrats, and movie stars (like Al Gore).

But what was the biggest news in the media coverage of the NAS report last week? The biased nature of the media coverage. It almost seems like the media covering the report looked for familiar phrases that fit their global warming paradigm (e.g., "...warmer than the previous 400 years..."), without noting the important conclusions that addressed why the report was written in the first place.

Indeed, much of the press coverage managed to connect the words "warmer than" with a report reference to "2,000 years" to come up with widespread statements (not supported by the report) that the Earth is warmer now than when Jesus Christ walked the Earth. Apparently, sound bites are still preferred over truth.

The NAS review panel report admits that it is difficult to conclude that we are warmer now than 1,000 years ago, but that we are very likely warmer than anytime in the last 400 years. Since what this really means is that we are warmer now than any time during the "Little Ice Age" (and thank goodness for that), one wonders whether we really know anything about past climate reconstructions from tree ring data.

Dr. Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite.
Categories:

183 Comments

Holding out
Twenty years after Heisenberg and Schroedinger and Dirac there still were physicists who did not believe quantum mechanics, Einstein among them (sort of, it's a long story). The tenure system made that possible. Today we have a few tenured holdouts denying global warming or (yes, you) saying it's insignificant.

I say global warming is so dangerous that the only way for us to survive is to stop using technology and go back to living in caves. Even solar cells and windfarms cause cancer. There's a reason G-d put only two people in the garden of Eden, it was not sustainable with more. We need to go back to a simpler time before right wing astroturf sites that claim to promote science but really exist to make the rich richer.

LG makes even less sense than usual.
1) There is nobody who denies that the earth has warmed over the last 100 years. Why do you insist on trotting out this old lie?

2)It's way more than a few individuals who are stating that global warming is nothing to worry about.

The Real reason....
Anyone with half a brain understands that about 10,000 years ago, the Earth Goddess knew that at a date in the future a man named George w. Bush would be born. That being the case, She ended the Ice Age and began to warm the Earth....Things really began to heat up only after the birth of the Bush-Devil in 1946 and, in the year 2000, it became obvious to the Prophet-Savior known as 'The Goracle' that TRUTH dictated that we were now 'in crisis.' Per the 'Goracle' there is now 100% scientific consensus on this, (which is not as strong as McGovern's 1000% endorsement of Eagleton....but I digress) and that is certainly strong enough for me. While a 'hockey stick' may have been thrown into the mix, it could well be that was done to get sports fans interested. As of today I pledge not to burn religious heretics (nor liberal democrats nor any collectivists) at the stake in order to help Save the Planet.(unless they are already dead in which case I'll do so only under UN and EPA auspices and only in approved burn bags and will promise to recycle their ashes).
You're so very welcome......

Really?
And what is your computer powered by? You certainly are on it enough. Lead by example.

The Real News About Mann-Made Global Warming
Dr. Roy Spencer's report regarding Mr. Mann's hockey stick and the media's coverage of the National Academy's Globle Warming Report was right on the money. It's very nice ready the whole true for a change, after putting up with
Al Gore, foaming at the mouth and raving about how Global Warming, then watching Brian Williams swisting the true of the National Academy Of Science's report. I really think Brian William wet himself as he raved about the swisted true regard the report!

I don't believe for one minute that Mr. Williams or any others in the National News Media didn't have or read the National Academy Of Science Report before reporting on it. Yet, they didn't report on all the facts and omitted the parts of the report that didn't support their Global Warming Doom & Gloom beliefs. They also omitted the fact that Mr. Mann's studies are dead wrong. This adds up to nothing but lying to it's views.

George C. Benson, Jr
Trenton, New Jersey

Bush: Global Warming is a serious problem
The GOP goes green
by Greg Pollowitz
National Review Online blog, June 26, 2006

"I have said consistently that global warming is a serious problem. There's a debate over whether it's manmade or naturally caused," Bush told reporters.

"We ought to get beyond that debate and start implementing the technologies necessary to enable us to achieve a couple of big objectives: One, be good stewards of the environment; two, become less dependent on foreign sources of oil, for economic reasons as for national security reasons," he said.

Bush cited "clean-coal technology," efforts to develop automobiles powered by hydrogen or ethanol, and his push for the United States to develop significant new nuclear energy capabilities.

"The truth of the matter is, if this country wants to get rid of its greenhouse gases, we've got to have the nuclear power industry be vibrant and viable," he said.

http://sixers.nationalreview.com/post/?q=
MDc3ZWFhMGZhNWZmMGZjMGVjZWFkMDhlNzgyMTY2MmU=

No economy killers
I note the president did not state the cause of global warming, only that we should use technology to be good stewards of the enviroment and use less foreign oil.

That is not something I would oppose.

And as the president stated "if" the country wants to get rid of greenhouse gases we will need nuclear power. NOT all kinds of restrictions.

I thought you told us Bush was an idiot?
...

Correct me if I'm wrong
but I don't recall the Bush administration as stating categorically that global warming was not occurring. What I recall them saying was that the Kyoto Protocol was:
1) an ineffective means of getting there, and
2) that the U.S. would not handicap its economy when a large fraction of the world's emitters were under no commitment of any kind to reduce their emissions.

This position is no different in essence from that of the Clinton administration.

So here's the bet. Ask the candidates of both parties for 2008 whether they would have the U.S. rejoin the KP. The leaders will all say no. The only agreement will come from those candidates in the desperate, no-hope category trying to attract some media attention for an otherwise doomed run in the primaries. Any takers?

Which exposes the real deal about GW..its a money pot
That's right. The real deal as to why GW is a big news is because it is a wonderful justification to scam money/special favors for particular groups. It is the ultimate 'rent seeking' play.

If you're a scientist in the market for a fat grant, expanding government research into GW is the way to go.

If you're some nut who wants to build giant mirrors in space to cool the planet or some other boondoggle -- as the media is giving more and more 'serious' coverage of these days -- just mention GW and 'saving the planet'.

If you are a failed politician starting a new career as a Joseph Goebbels with a PowerPoint slideshow, you hop on the GW bandwagon.

If you are a proponent for 'clean' coal or nuclear power...you guessed it! GW is your raison d'etre!

If you are an insurance company that wants to pull out of some bad Florida coverage policies now that the more violent end of the recurring multi-decade hurricane cycle is coming around, blame it on GW.

It's the best scam going nowadays. No...wait! Combining the words 'nano' and 'global warming' would be even better. Why not double the hype and quadruple the reward for all the BS work you have to do?

And...as as side note: I've been telling my bush-hating friends for years, "Even if Bush one day became one of the Pod People and declared GW is a real problem, you still wouldn't cut him any slack." Nice to know I called that one right.


Enron
Don't forget about Enron trying to push natural gas.

Outstanding article by Roy Spencer.
Great article Roy - balanced, truthful and insightful.

It is long overdue that someone wrote about the Divergence Problem.

It was highly unusual (and technically incorrect) for Mann to graft together dissimilar datasets - earlier tree ring proxies and modern thermometric data.

Now I think we understand why he did so: If Mann had simply plotted the tree ring data up to the present time he would have had to show a decline in proxy temperatures for the past ~25 years instead of his depiction of catastrophic global warming!

People would rightly have questioned the validity of tree ring proxies.

Mann's "hockey stick" paper would have made no news headlines and would not have become the ultimate sales tool for the IPCC/Global Warming political movement.

The Divergence Problem is one more break in the already-shattered Mann hockey stick.

Best regards, Allan

The head of the Royal Society
in the UK pointed out about three years ago (?) in specific reference to MBH 98 that proxy data could not show any spike in global temperatures in the 20th century. I believe his exact words were, "Data from proxy sources are not appropriate for demonstrating warming trends in the 20th century." No one listened.

A few holdouts? I'll give you holdouts!
>"Today we have a few tenured holdouts denying global warming or (yes, you) saying it's insignificant."

Here are few of those "holdouts":

Tim Ball at the University of Winnipeg
Robert Balling at Arizona State
Sallie Baliunas at Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Bob Carter at James Cook University in Australia
Randall Cerveny at Arizona State
John Christy at the University of Alabama
Robert Davis at the University of Virginia
Christopher Essex at the University of Western Ontario
Oliver Frauenfeld at the University of Colorado
Wibjörn Karlèn at Stockholm University
Christopher Landsea at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
David Legates at the University of Delaware
Henry Linden at IIT
Richard Lindzen at MIT
Ross McKitrick at the University of Guelph
Patrick Michaels at the University of Virginia
**** Morgan at the University of Exeter
Tim Peterson at Carleton University
Roger Pielke Jr. at the University of Colorado
Eric Posmentier at Dartmouth
Willie Soon at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center
Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama
Boris Winterhalter at the University of Helsinki

All of these climatologists dispute AGW in some fashion. Perhaps you would like to drop your old line of "a few crackpot skeptics" since the winds are changing for AGW as more and more real science is being done in the field.

So get on over to exxonsecrets.com to find out that they are all in the pocket of Big Oil(!).

The rest of your post is... er... interesting? I sincerely hope that this is an extreme form of sarcasm although I can't be sure since mosts of your posts possess this whacked-out quality.

Beating Gulliver to the punch
To all of those skeptics out there let me just say one thing that will invalidate any of your AGW skepticism:

"NAS!"

That's right!

"NAS!"

Now run back to your momma's. Thou hast been pwned!!!!

sure is lucky you know better than the NAS
I mean, otherwise people might think an entity created by Abraham Lincoln to give the U.S. the best possible scientific advice, made up of the most eminent scientists in the country, knew something.

But instead, we've got Tlaloc, who doesn't know elementary chemistry, but is able to tell us how wrong and silly the NAS is. Thank you so much for sharing. Why not post your email address so that the President and Congress can bypass the NAS fuddy-duddies and get the real **** from the horse's, er, aperture.

Sure is lucky that we can always count on you to lie about what the NAS said.
...

The sun did it.
I've recently read two studies that show that sun spot activity over the last 70 years is the strongest in the last 1000 and 8000 years, respectively.

It's well known that the earth's temperature tracks the number of sun spots.

Man of a thousand stupid faces
You are Gulliver now but when will The Mule come back? I also like Fortunato, he was the most amusing since he was, without doubt, the dumbest one of your personalities.

Anyway, I will let my post above speak for me. At least the NAS is under enough pressure to at least pretend to change their ways when it comes to AGW. Who knows, perhaps they will actually base their views on evidence!

I am sure that once AGW is proven to be the alarmist clap-trap it always has been and the NAS confirms it they will move across the aisle to the "crackpot skeptic" category.

Oh, I forgot: "NAS!"

And if organizations created by Lincoln are beyond reproach and timeless in their integrity then I gather that you are a Republican?

Sun activity??
Why would you challenge the chicken little$ by mentioning the Sun? Don't you know the Sun bathes the Earth with @ 5 Million Quads/year ( a quad is a billion BTUs)but man made output is about 1000 Quads, so clearly 1000 divided by 5,000,000 is the number to focus on?
Do ya think that .0002 is something we should ignore?? Might it co$t $ome $cienti$t$ some money!!
Shame on you!

Can't trade solar credits
Yea, there's money to be made in trading CO2 credits, but it's kind of hard to trade solar credits.

About this list
I've got to admit that this is a formidible list. I spot checked a few of the names and they check out. Several of these people are major award winning scientists. Scientific awards, by the way, are decided by peer scientists. In this case, the peers, most of whom accept global warming, nevertheless recognized the contributions of those who do not. Yes, science is political, but not in the way some conservatives say.

One of those award winners is Sallie Baluinas. The wikipedia article on her says: "Baliunas earlier adopted a skeptical position regarding the hypothesis that CFCs were damaging to the ozone layer, which earned its originators, Paul Crutzen, Mario Molina and Frank Sherwood Rowland, the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1995." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas ). Of course, even great scientists can be wrong from time to time -- Einstein was. Baliunas certainly was wrong on ozone and probably is wrong about global warming. That's why we go for consensus rather than the opinion of a single person, no matter how qualified.

Second comment: these 23 people represent a tiny (less than 1%) fraction of climate scientists with comparable credentials.

Clinton Gore: Enron corporate shills
"The letter, dated Sept. 1, asked the president to shut off the public scientific debate on global warming, which continues to this date. In particular, it requested Clinton to "moderate the political aspects" of this discussion by appointing a bipartisan "Blue Ribbon Commission."

The purpose of this commission was clear: high-level trashing of dissident scientists. Setting up a panel to do this is simple -- just look at the latest issue of Scientific American, where four attack dogs were called out to chew up poor Bjorn Lomborg. He had the audacity to publish a book demonstrating global warming is overblown.

Because of the arcane nature of science, it's easy to trash scientists. Imagine a 1940 congressional hearing to discredit Einstein. "This man actually believes the faster you drive, the slower your watch runs. Mr. Einstein, then why weren't you here yesterday?" The public, listening on radio, immediately concludes this Princeton weirdo is just another academic egghead. End of reputation.

The proposed commission was billed as an "educational effort" that would lead to "subsequent policy actions," which the letter itself recommended. These included a directive to "establish the rules for crediting early, voluntary emissions reductions [of carbon dioxide]." And who was going to sell these credits? Enron, of course."

http://www.cato.org/dailys/02-06-02.html

All of you who support Gore, how does it feel to be shilling for a corrupt, bankrupt corporation?

Find the link
No I did not. Nor is this the first positive piece I've posted about President Bush:

Rhampton
Subject: ...and Blame Bush too!
Date/Time: 15 Mar 2006, 11:43 PM

Texas to offer two sites for power plant
AP, March 15, 2006

Texas will recommend two sites to the U.S. Energy Department, with lawmakers and civic leaders hoping that one will be home to the world's first NEAR-ZERO-EMISSIONS COAL POWER PLANT, Gov. Rick Perry announced Tuesday.

The state wants to land the $1 billion project known as FUTUREGEN, an initiative led by the Energy Department and a consortium of nine companies from the United States, China, the United Kingdom and Australia...

...PRESIDENT BUSH ANNOUNCED THE NEED FOR FUTUREGEN IN 2003 TO COMBAT GLOBAL WARMING, blamed by scientists on the burning of fossil fuels...

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/business/14103428.htm

FutureGen: http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/

http://www.tcsdaily.com/discussionForum.aspx?
fldIdTopic=7487&fldIdMsg=12661

Survey says
Every survey ever done of actual climate scientists has found that only a small fraction of them believe that AGW is something worth worrying about. There's still a substantial fraction (more than 1/4th) who aren't convinced that GW is even being caused by humans.

Once again Spencer shows his contempt for science by using spin rhetoric and politics
This report by Spencer is so blatantly political that it makes me ashamed to be a scientist. I am certainly not one like him and I disavow what Spencer says as personal conjecture. He does not speak for the science community of which I am a part of.

One really needs to ask why Spencer is attempting to discredit science to the public at large.

I am sorry, Spencer. I just don't see what you are doing as being anything close to constructive.

Roy's standing took a dive when he planted his flag next to the ID movement.
The level of faith based "science" going on in the US these day's will only hasten your fall from the top of the science class.

Contempt not for science
"Also, the uncritical acceptance of the hockey stick for inclusion in the U.N.'s Third Assessment Report on global climate in 2001 gave many scientists the impression that the editors of that report wanted to believe the hockey stick more than they were convinced of its validity.

In their attempt to not publicly scold Mann and his coauthors for questionable data analysis methods, the authors of the new report instead chose to restate the evidence for how warm the Earth has gotten recently. What the media didn't notice, however, is that the 1,000 year figure that was central to the whole hockey stick debate had now been replaced in the report by a figure of 400 years. Since most of the last 400 years was dominated by the "Little Ice Age," the warming during the 20th century should be welcomed by humanity."

My take away is, and I agree, is the contempt is in the politics swirling around the issue and the inability for a committee to make strong statements.

As you should know, science is about proving yourself wrong and all it takes is ONE instance that does not conform to theory to reject or modify the theory.

Let the battle rage in the literature and on the internet and politics be damned.

NO POLITICS IN AGW?:

"The letter, dated Sept. 1, asked the president to shut off the public scientific debate on global warming, which continues to this date. In particular, it requested Clinton to "moderate the political aspects" of this discussion by appointing a bipartisan "Blue Ribbon Commission."

The purpose of this commission was clear: high-level trashing of dissident scientists. Setting up a panel to do this is simple -- just look at the latest issue of Scientific American, where four attack dogs were called out to chew up poor Bjorn Lomborg. He had the audacity to publish a book demonstrating global warming is overblown.

Because of the arcane nature of science, it's easy to trash scientists. Imagine a 1940 congressional hearing to discredit Einstein. "This man actually believes the faster you drive, the slower your watch runs. Mr. Einstein, then why weren't you here yesterday?" The public, listening on radio, immediately concludes this Princeton weirdo is just another academic egghead. End of reputation.

The proposed commission was billed as an "educational effort" that would lead to "subsequent policy actions," which the letter itself recommended. These included a directive to "establish the rules for crediting early, voluntary emissions reductions [of carbon dioxide]." And who was going to sell these credits? Enron, of course."

http://www.cato.org/dailys/02-06-02.html

I don't think so
Unlike Tlaloc's post, this one (i) has no backup, (ii) is a figment of your great imagination. The AGU (professional society climate scientists belong to) voted that global warming is a serious problem. The NAS also mostly thinks so (thought not every member). Provide a link or sit down.

Note: not just that human activity causes warming, but that this warming is will be substantial and disruptive.

Faith based global warming?
"The statement calls for federal legislation that would require reductions in carbon dioxide emissions through "cost-effective, market-based mechanisms" — a phrase lifted from a Senate resolution last year and one that could appeal to evangelicals, who tend to be pro-business. The statement, to be announced in Washington, is only the first stage of an "Evangelical Climate Initiative" including television and radio spots in states with influential legislators, informational campaigns in churches, and educational events at Christian colleges."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/national/08warm.html?ex=1297054800&en=c3998565b07f9657&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

You don't think
on that, we all agree.

Where's your evidence that future warming is going to be substantial and disruptive.

Just how the heck is another o.1 to 0.2 degrees of warming substantial?

now that's a laughh
stephen refering to himself as a scientist.

Care to show just where Spencer is wrong. Or are we just supposed to take your word for it?

The only one here discrediting science, is you.

notice how the left wing nutsoids can't be bothered to deal with the substance, they just throw insu
The only faith based science around here, is the belief by many on the left in catastrophic AGW.

There is not, and never has been a shred of evidence to support that supposition, but it is trotted out daily and worshiped regardless.

THE REASON FOR EUROPE'S RETREAT? THE REAL COST OF THE KYOTO PROTOCOL
THE REASON FOR EUROPE'S RETREAT? THE REAL COST OF THE KYOTO PROTOCOL

PRNewswire, 7 November 2005
http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=157608

- Research Confirms Blair Suspicion That Economic Growth Significantly Damaged by Kyoto Framework and Emissions Targets

- Kyoto Targets to Lead to Average Rises of 26% in Electricity Prices Across UK, Italy, Germany and Spain

New research published today (7th November 2005) by the International Council for Capital Formation (ICCF) reveals the broad and significant economic repercussions of adopting Kyoto for the UK, Germany, Italy and Spain - and specifically its impact for each nation on energy prices, economic growth (in terms of GDP) and jobs.

The series of in-depth studies analysed the economic and energy implications of meeting emissions reductions defined under the Kyoto Protocol through an emissions trading regime. An assumption was made that the EU emissions trading scheme will be broadened to cover all sectors, including households and transportation. The studies show a significant rise in energy costs for consumers and businesses.

The research revealed that if the four countries meet their Kyoto emission reduction targets in 2010 they face:

- Increasing energy bills: An average increase in electricity prices of 26% and an average increase of 41% of natural gas prices by 2010 (across UK, Germany, Spain and Italy - see full table in notes to editors)

- Significant job losses: Job losses of at least 200,000 in each of Italy, Germany, UK and Spain to meet Kyoto targets by 2010 - rising to as many as 611,000 in Spain in 2010

- Damage to economy: A significant reduction in GDP below base case levels by 2010: 0.8% for Germany (18.5 billion Euros), 3.1% for Spain (26 billion Euros), 2.1% for Italy (27 billion Euros) and 1.1% for the UK (22 billion Euros).

The ICCF research concludes that these consequences would severely damage economic growth and adversely affect standards of living across Europe. Published only days after the Gleneagles Dialogue meeting of the G8 countries in London, the research confirms Prime Minister Tony Blair's view that countries are 'nervous' about emissions targets and 'would not sacrifice economic growth for external agreements'.

The ICCF hope that these findings will contribute to the ongoing debate on how to develop an international framework for tackling climate change - and send a message to the EU Commission as it prepares for the first official Meeting of the Parties of the Kyoto Protocol in Montreal at the end of November.

Dr Margo Thorning, Managing Director of the ICCF, commented:

"The findings of our research support Blair in his recent move away from the "target and timetable" approach to climate policy - and suggest that an alternative approach is urgently needed for both the developing and developed world. A cooperative global approach to reducing emission growth, building on the Asia-Pacific Pact, is more likely to produce real emissions reductions, without damaging economic growth in the EU and elsewhere. "

- For all media enquiries and for a summary of the four reports, please contact ICCF press office on +44-(0)207-618-9100 or +32-2 230-70-20.

- Full copies of all the research are available on www.iccfglobal.org.

- For more information about the ICCF, please contact Dr. Margo Thorning, ICCF at: Park Leopold, Rue Wiertz 50/28 B-1050 Brussels, BELGIUM, +1-202-468-09-03, mthorning@iccfglobal.org . The ICCF can also be reached in Washington DC at 1750 K Street,NW, Suite 400,Washington D.C. 20006.

- Breakdown of impact on energy prices in individual countries:


Electricity Natural Gas
2010 2020 2010 2020
Italy 13% 14% 44% 54%
UK 35% 34% 46% 57%
Spain 23% 27% 42% 51%
Germany 31% 32% 30% 39%
Average 26% 27% 41% 50%

Source: Global Insight, Inc.


Distributed by PR Newswire on behalf of International Council for Capital Formation (ICCF)

Where have all the liberals gone?
This is the first BB about GW that hasn't even broken 100 posts yet.
Where have all the liberals gone?
Facts got in the way?

How can this be? bob keeps telling us that not only is Kyoto painless
but it will actually increase economic activity and create jobs.

This really isn't that many scientists
The AGU has about 40,000 members.

Yes, a fact did get in the way
The fact that you and your colleagues in determined ignorance will deny and ignore any and all facts and documentation in pushing your pre-determined conclusions.

Is it that many climatologists?
Please provide me with what percentage of the AGU is actual climatologists. Not to mention that these are more climatologist that sit on the NAS(!) but don't let that get in the way.

Nice try Mule.

By documentation and facts...
you mean flawed models and alarmist screeching.

And hey, Marjon, cut Fortunato some slack. It takes time to log out and log in to post under so many identities.

pre-determined conclusions
"pre-determined conclusions."

What are they? I have agreed with many climatologists writing for TCS, WSJ and other publications that there have been too many predetermined conclusions.
As I mentioned in the Enron post, they tried to get Clinton/Gore to stop public debate over the issue of global warming, which Gore seems to have taken on with relish. Talk about a predetermined conclusion.

blow me
1. you don't even know how the model works, nor can you point to any flaws, nor would it matter if you tried, because you have no scientific credibility.

2. noting that the NAS has come to a conclusion about a matter is not "alarmist screeching. Endless, insulting, fact free posts complaining about it is denialist screeching.

Sure: the NAS is into predetermined conclusion
The NAS doesn't understand science. The AGU is politicized. It's all a big conspiracy of tree huggers, greedy scientists and socialist world government reds.

Save it for the converted. It is nonsense, and repeating it just makes it more nonsensical.

That's funny
considering that you have no facts on your side, yet you continue to act as if you did.

The models flaws have been posted many times
1) They fail to predict temperature, horizontal distribution, vertical distribution, and overall temperature trends.

2) The fail to predict the behavior of clouds.

3) They are based on assumptions and tuned to create their results, rather than being built on knowledge and science.

4) The models fail when attempting to predict past climates.

NAS
The conclusion reached by the NAS is that the hockey stick was based on bad data and bad methodology.

Previous NAS conclusions were that we don't know enough and need to study more.

You don't even know what the words mean.
And not just the hard words, like models. Words like clouds.

And you have no backup whatsoever for what you say.

Stop wasting everyone's time.

Since they have no science and no facts to base their projections on,
what conclusion would you reach regarding their motives?

most of whom have publicly repudiated the leaderships positions
...

What do you know about "bad data" and "bad methodology"
"The conclusion reached by the NAS is that the hockey stick was based on bad data and bad methodology."

We have a conclusion that the data is completely reliable for the last 400 years, likely reliable out to 900 A.D., and a concluson that the recent bout of warming can't be explained except as a human artifact. Live with it.

TCS Daily Archives