Another bombshell coming for AGW?

Why would the Green bubble burst? Aside from altering the atmosphere in dangerous ways, there are loads of very compelling reasons to abandon fossil fuels include:

a.) nation security
b.) public health
c.) insulation from an increasing expensive and scare resource

So green bubble is a bit of a misnomer. Climate perhaps, but I'm very skeptical of that. It seems to me that the anecdotal evidence of warming is starting to be pretty noticeable. Local highs are really starting to outstrip record lows and that's locally compiled data. We might set a new record high here in Denver tomorrow. We could reach 80F, which for this time of year is quite warm (obviously as that would set a record. )

 

This from a source who discloses nothing about who they are except this very reassuring 'graph.

No mention of who they are. I would ask the question,, prove it!

 

I know every time I want unbiased news on climate change science I go straight to "Climate Change Dispatch".

 

Please forgive my strong reaction to this post. I guess I'm venting and saw an opportunity.
I intend nothing personal I just find nebulous publications, sites and similar media offensive.
The Climate Change Dispatch appears to have the class of political campaign adds on tv. I've already suffered through enough lies, half truths, and mud slinging to keep me full for at least one more election cycle. I sure don't like their web site approach. Our local mystery funded newspaper editorialist sure had to shut up after our record setting temperatures this summer. While not "climate" they sure came out from under their rocks when we had a few cold days in February but they just melted away in June, July, August, September and even October. We are going through a climate warming cycle. We (the world) will suffer consequences. Whether "caused" by man or just enhanced by man... it is happening. We can do nothing except "keep on keeping on" and hope for the best or try to slow the trend down.
A few people truly believe we're mistaken about global warming. I respectfully disagree.
Some people have an agenda.
Follow the money. An industry or business that wants to get more and protect its own will say and often do anything to succeed.
I'm old enough to remember watching cigarette CEOs testifying before congress swearing that they really believed cigarettes did not cause cancer...later released documents proved them very dishonest. During the 20+ years fight they made a lot of money...and killed a lot of believers.
Who primarily funded the fight against an income tax on the wealthy in Washington State? Perhaps if I were very wealthy I'd have done the same. Perhaps Steve J and his dad were on the wrong side and just didn't know it.
Many "New" expensive meds coming out claim to be much better than their generics. Most of the objective studies prove their suppliers wrong.
Investing in our independence and helping reduce global warming seem like a win win for our country and the stability of the world's environment.
Follow the MONEY ! We must have learned something from Watergate.

 

I'd like to see scientific publications that mister Singer (see he never got a phd), would cite his claims that AGW is obviously fake. Me suspects the alleged e-mails from University of Virginia are from Singer himself. He has been asserting AGW is bunk since the 70s, yet still more and more environmental scientists accept AGW. Money spent on climate research is a triffle compared to the national budget, so I don't see some great agenda by the man to prove AGW. BTW, what were the other alleged bombshells against AGW?

 

Mr Singer has a Phd in physics.

 

Heres a little gem from Wiki.
Carl Sagan must be an idiot?
Not really,Sagan was actually brilliant.
But Fred Singer taught him something about atmospheric science.

"During [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Storm"]Operation Desert Storm[/ame] in 1991, he argued that smoke from the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwaiti_oil_fires"]Kuwaiti oil fires[/ame] would have little impact, in opposition to most commentators. He debated the astronomer [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan"]Carl Sagan[/ame] on ABC's Nightline, Sagan arguing that the smoke might loft into the upper atmosphere and lead to massive agricultural failures. Singer argued that it would rise to 3,000 feet (910 m) then be rained out after a few days.[41] Singer's position proved correct: the fires had little impact beyond the Gulf region.[42]"

 

So he does aparently. Carl Segan was an astrophysicist and not as fluent with Earth based climate science. I'd look to him for astrological facts and debunking psuedoscience from von Daniken then about geological facts. My favorite quote about the possibilities of mating with an alien species comes from him....but a debate from him and Singer on Nightline have no scientific bearing on Earth science.

 

I'd rather pay attention to Carl Sagan talking about astronomy. Astrology isn't even pseudoscience, it is entertainment.

 

astrological, astronomical,....astroschmecial

 

but Carl Sagan on climate science is an entirely different kettle of fish. Might be interesting, but he was hardly an expert on the subject was he? That's really a straw-man argument it seems to me.

 

Thanks to Trebuchet for rattling my cage on this. Virginia AG Cuccinelli filed a motion (of some sort) on this, it was quashed by a judge, and now has refiled a narrower "Civil Investigative Demand".
(CID)

Not too hard to find on the internet and possibly worth reading. I noted with surprise that it makes no mention of the NAS report
"Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years"

Which you can peek at here

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

As the CID listed all the publications disputing the hockey stick (that's what it's all about), missing the NAS report seemed pretty important. So I emailed to both Cuccinelli and UVA's Wynne (the recipient of the CID) and made mention of that.

The legal basis of fraud, being contended, is that Mann "knew or should have known" about the possible shortcomings of hockey stick when he spent UVa grant money. In the email I applied the same standard and suggested that Cuccinelli "knew or should have known" about the NAS report when he spent taxpayer's money to prepare the CID.

Few would benefit from Cuccinelli's office being accused of fraudulent behavior themselves

 

Google Mr. Cuccinelli. I'm sure Sarah Palin will appoint him to the SCOTUS if she can.

 

In other news, Mr. Cukkucelli demands that the flat earth society dictum be taught in our public schools, to promote a balanced view of earth science.

 

I'm not clear on posters positions here.
You are defending Manns
"hockey stick"?


Meaning you believe there was no midieval warming period and no little ice age?

 

No. Meaning Mann is the most brilliant Earth scientist of the generation, and he is as likely to get parts of the story wrong, as you are to get parts of the story right.

Meaning that the hockey stick is meant to describe an amplification cascade, and the preponderance of evidence on top of basic scientific understanding makes this aspect of AGW contentious only to flat-earthers.

 

I would not prejudice mojo's perspective on the referenced NAS report, one way or the other. Does my opinion on paleotemperature reconstructions matter, though? My point was that the report is evidentiary, to an equal or higher standard than McIntire and McKitrick publications that are mentioned in the CID.

On related, I must remember incorrectly that it was Mojo who cheered (perhaps sarcastically) when Mann et al (2008 in PNAS) 'rediscovered' the Midieval Warm Period.

Mainly though, Culcinelli's [email protected] is not accepting and I must find other means to inform him. Get that egg off his face as soon as possible, so that the wheels of justice may grind onwards.

...his campaign has a website that accepts messages, so that's done.