From Skeptic to Vindicated
Tags: Climategate.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
We global warming doubters are no longer the fringe – we’ve been vindicated:
Much has been written already about the now infamous “trick” to explain away recent global cooling, and the alarmists’ conspiratorial machinations to silence their critics. But the real “mushroom cloud” among the emails comes from Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a lead author of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports on global warming.
In an October 14 email to fellow alarmist Tom Wigley, Trenberth plaintively writes:
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
…First, by admitting that we “are nowhere close” to understanding atmospheric energy flows, the much-vaunted Trenberth has trashed all the climate models on which the gloom-and-doom IPCC forecasts are based. If energy flows in the climate system cannot be accounted for, then they cannot be modeled — and there can be no basis upon which to make predictions of future temperatures.
That’s case closed, right there.
As the author of the linked piece – Steve Malloy – goes on to note, there’s even more but to bottom line it: There is not and has not been any evidence that human caused CO2 has played any role in global climate.
As for me, I began to doubt the theory of anthropogenic global warming as soon as I found out how much CO2 there is in the atmosphere (0.038%) and how much of annual CO2 emissions are caused by humans (5%) – it just didn’t seem credible that something which is that tiny a part of the atmosphere would trump all else in controlling global temperatures – and that if it were the case, the tiny fraction produced by us could not be reduced sufficiently to affect the outcome (as in the fact that there are six times as many people exhaling every day than there were, say, 150 years go – no matter how hard we try, we simply cannot return to pre-industrial levels of human CO2 emissions). But I didn’t have the data way back when to actually assert that it wasn’t happening. Now, I do.
For you who fell for this scam, my advice is to think about things – watch out for alarmist headlines and look in to it. Even the claim that atmospheric CO2 has risen 30% since 1850 needs to be placed in context – it means that the amount of CO2 went from 280 parts per million to 360. If I give you a million dollars and then take 360 away from you, how much would you notice it? Environmentalists decades ago announced they would flat out lie in order to advance their cause – anti-human in the extreme, environmentalists view people as a plague and thus figure that any action taken to thwart humanity is a good thing. Given their overall leftist ideology, it followed naturally that they would hold that a lie in the service of what they view as a good cause is ok. Global warming is just the biggest – and most successful – lie they’ve tried.
So, now, lets look for ways to pollute less simply because we all like a clean and tidy world. Lets preserve vast tracts of unspoiled wilderness because its pretty and we like it. But lets leave off all asinine, Chicken Little alarmism.
UPDATE: What Media Bias? Part 163
The controversy surrounding the global warming e-mail scandal has deepened after a BBC correspondent admitted he was sent the leaked messages more than a month before they were made public.
Now, if the leaked e mails told a story of a conservative falsifying data, how long do you think it would be before that got front page treatment?
Cross Posted at OpinionEditorial
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.
22 Responses to “From Skeptic to Vindicated”
Caucus of Corruption
Next up……..
“are we willing to take the chance?”
The usual fall-back talking points of the sky-is-falling “scientists”, politicians, lemmings, moochers and looters.
Which studies were compromised, how? Please be specific. Cite papers and data sets. What is the evidence? where is it? what work is affected? how?
This supposed scandal involves perhaps a half dozen people, how does it affect the work of the 3,000+ others who’s work makes up climate science?
How does it affect the work that was done before the alleged culprits graduated from univeristy? the work from before they were born?
Of the 30,000(ish) studies that make up climate science, which ones are undone? where is the evidence? be specific … show us exactly how and why?
flimflam,
The whole theory has always been bogus – you can’t point to a single study based upon hard science for which the underlying data has been put to the test by AGW skeptics.
As I see it, if this administrations plans come to fruition, then we will be closing the pages of further history in this country to things that you and I won’t ever have the fortune to be a witness in this debacle for others to have some foresight into in order they can avoid it…because by that time, in the words of Mr. Obama the “winds of change will have come, and they will have either done killed the majority of us, or swept us all away into concentration camps…and from there, most women will be forced to have the sterilization methods that Mr.Obama’s so-called “science” czar wants for everybody, and there will be mandatory abortions, and of course … for the schools, they won’t be much different than they are now, being places of indoctrination.
It just seems so eerily like 1934 Germany being perpetuated all over again, only in a land that has known freedom for over 220 years.
flimflam,
I don’t see any of those “thousands” of other “scientist” with “reports” opening their books so others can see the data and the source code so that others can reproduce and verify the information.
Here there is clear cut evidence that global warming or climate change or whatever they are calling it now was simply a political issue where the ends justify the means. And “global warming” hysteria is an attempt at income redistribution and is making millionares out of some of those who are the most hysterical about it.
It’s up to the global warming crowd to prove that it is happening and that it is due to humans involvement.We’ve been waiting for proof for some time. All we get is ridicule and statements that of course, it has been proven and there is consenses on it.
So Carol, I take it you are not aware of the notion of peer-reviewed studies in the scientific field?
Part and Act One of the Liberals and Al Gore’s Green Fake Science being Exposed for their lies and Hypocrisy. America will see how the far left and the Global-Warming Theory is just that; A Theory, but for their sole purpose of milking untold millions of taxpayers money for their mansions and extravagant living.
Al Gore should be held accountable for his thievery and lies. And all those that associate with him. (Hmmm wouldn’t we all like to know)…
Praise
“So Carol, I take it you are not aware of the notion of peer-reviewed studies in the scientific field?”
.
Peer reviewed studies? These scientists refused to show their data or source code so how could others duplicate their findings? Or see if their studies were accurate with reproducable results.
.
Now if you are talking about peer reviewed journal articles-well you’re wrong about that too. It’s quite easy to have only “peers” that review your journal articles be those that agree with you when you refuse to allow published articals that disent from your “belief”, and only work with those who “agree” with you.
Those leaked e mails touch on all of these.
Flip-flop, you’re fighting a losing battle here. We don’t believe, and your talking points won’t sway us at all.
There’s nothing left for you to do, boy, but to get off the short bus, and jump in front of it.
I’ll miss you…not!!!
@carol: yeah, how dare these thousands of scientists that got similar results prevent others from replicating their results! Scandalous I tell you!
french student,
Which specific studies are you talking about? Because there are certainly quite a few studies where the data wasn’t released or the method was poor (see the studies reliant on three trees or four polar bears). Furthermore, many studies tend to only include temperatures from the last thirty years instead of going all the way back, as they should. This isn’t to say that there aren’t some studies which are done correctly, but there definitely are at least some studies which should be called into question.
We can agree that far, yes? And I’m sure at least one of the studies in these e-mails is that kind of study.
observer: I was merely pointing out the stupidity of Carol’s argument (since she herself accepted the “thousands of scientists finding similar results” premise)
Since I’m in between net connexions at the moment, and I don’t feel like doing heavy research from my cell phone, I’m not going to answer your questions, as a thoughtful answer would need such research and a thoughtless one would not bring anything new to the table.
btw, Mark, since you dismissed the effects of carbone dioxide becausd concentrations were too low to have sch an effect in your opinion, do you know what the lethal concentration of carbon monoxide is?
0,16%
and yet it still has an effect: you dying in under two hours.
frogstupid
Antarctic was six degrees warmer
Thursday, November 19 07:18 pm
Press Assoc. *
Temperatures in Antarctica during warm periods between ice ages soared to up to 6C warmer than the present day, a new study has shown.
The findings could help us understand more about rapid climate changes, scientists said.
Until now temperatures during the warm periods between ice ages – known as interglacials – were thought to be only slightly warmer than those of the present day, British Antarctic Survey (BAS) scientists explained.
But the findings, published this week in journal Nature, show brief spikes in temperature, which recur roughly every 100,000 years and last a few thousand years, seem to have been a lot warmer.
WOW
must from CAVEMEN cooking rabbits on bonfires
BWWWWWWWAAAAA HA HA HA
the sky is falling the sky is falling!!!!
AYYYYYEEEEEE
meanwhile islam is taking over france and nobody cares.
More
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ
30,000 scientists sue algore
We’ve all seen the now famous chart of the increasing CO2, but did you know that it comes from a volcanic mountain in Hawaii called Mauna Loa?
If you’ve watched “The Great Global Warming Swindle” you know that CO2 for the most part is a natural occurrence. By far the largest conrtibutor of CO2 is the ocean, second is rotting vegetation, third is volcanoes. Well Mauna Loa has all three of these natural producers of CO2 going for it, its on an island in the Pacific its a tropical paradise with lots of vegetation and is a volcanic mountain that has erupted twice since the chart began and is increasing in volcanic activity and could erupt again.
CO2-Chart.jpg
The reason they use the Mauna Loa chart is because it is the longest record of direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere, plus it has steadily increased every year except maybe this year.(The zig-zagging up and down are the seasons of the year). Some think with the recent La Nina and the cooling of the Pacific, that this year the increase might reverse or at least slow down.
My concern is that, CO2 levels, just like temperature, vary dramatically around the globe and yet we use just one station to measure it, but we use many stations to measure temperature. And it is my contention that measuring CO2 from on top a volcanic mountian in Hawaii skews the data in favor of Al Gore.
If you wanted to measure man’s impact on global CO2 wouldn’t you put the measuring station out in the middle of Nebraska or Arizona or someplace like that far away from any natural occuring CO2?
Often I’ve wondered why so much attention is used to look at temperature around the globe but not CO2? Then yesterday on “Future Tense” I head about something called the “Vulcan Project” where scientist form Purdue University and other places have developed a way to look at CO2 emissions 100 times more acuratlly.
It is a very dramatic look at CO2 and shows how it varies from place to place. Unfortunately this only measures manmade CO2, which is just a fraction of what nature cranks out, and I don’t know if they use any actual measurments of CO2 or just computer models. Plus, I hope they take into account plant absorption of CO2. I think a better way to measure CO2 globally would be to put a CO2 measuring device in every weather station.
french,
What has carbon monoxide got to do with anything? Is that now going to be inserted in to the debate to distract attention away from how bogus the CO2 issue has become?
Mark
ON OIL
In 1977, Scold in Chief Jimmy Carter predicted that mankind “could use up all the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade.”
Hmmm. Really.
ON GLOBAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE
Newsweek (“The Cooling World,” April 28, 1975) reported that meteorologists “are almost unanimous” that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said “may mark the return to another ice age.” The New York Times (May 21, 1975) also said “a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable” now that it is “well established” that the Northern Hemisphere’s climate “has been getting cooler since about 1950.”
Hmmm. Really.
sound familiar????
neocon1 says: (November 27th, 2009 at 9:29 am)…
You do realize that the study you cite indicates that they are basing their conclusions on GCMs (global climate models): “Model results indicate that the isotopic composition of East Antarctic ice is less sensitive to temperature changes during warmer climates. We conclude that previous temperature estimates from interglacial climates are likely to be too low. The available evidence is consistent with a peak Antarctic interglacial temperature that was at least 6 K higher than that of the present day —approximately double the widely quoted 3 +/- 1.5 K.”
So I guess there are two surprises involved in your citing this study: (1) who would have guessed you were such a proponent of GCMs, and; (2) who would have guessed that scientists really do analyze data that are considerably older than 100 years or so.
Mark : Carbon monoxide was only used as an example of a gas that has drastic effects at very low concentrations, in answer to your “As for me, I began to doubt the theory of anthropogenic global warming as soon as I found out how much CO2 there is in the atmosphere (0.038%) ” sentence.
I take it that you would have no problem breathing air that was 0.038% hydrogen cyanide?
It’s also important to remember that without any greenhouse effect at all, the Earth would be frozen solid. This means that a small change in the strength of the greenhouse effect, because the effect itself is so large, will end up having a substantial impact on our temperature scale.
Al Gore was born in 1948. The possibility of global warming via the greenhouse effect was first proposed by Svante Arrhenius in 1908.
Slacker. Speaking of which, it’s time for bed.
As for me, I began to doubt the theory of obesity being due to overeating when I found out I was only overeating by 5%.