So, crickets in response to my reasonable query here:

Quote

If there is some vast, ulterior conspiracy to falsely conclude that natural climate patterns are aberrant and athropogenic, and to impel modifications of energy systems accordingly, who is behind it and what is the purpose?

Got it.

What?

Oh, do you mean -

Who is behind the "Man-Made" Global Warming hoax?

That's facinating information on the reliability of Wikipedia, KidRaw. For a behind the scenes look at how the Wikipedia biography of Hal Lewis is being shaped and reshaped here is talk amongst the wikipedia editors including William M. Connolly who is apparently still able to edit --

"It seems regrettable that 80% of this chaps biog should be a regrettable letter that he wrote in old age. Is that really the only notable thing he has done? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

"A "regrettable letter"? I take it you say this because you think he was wrong for standing up against corruption? I think there are reasons to argue that that letter was a remarkably brave and significant accomplishment. 69.232.67.250 (talk) 09:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

"Happily, I've found a reason to remove it - El Rego isn't an RS for this kind of thing. I've no doubt that it will appear in an RS sometime, but could whoever adds it back please consider being kind to this old chap and trying to tone some of the rant down a bit? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)"

[en.wikipedia.org]

Connolly suggests toning down Lewis' APS resignation letter before it's brought back? He must be joking but by the sounds of it if he could he would.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2010 10:11PM by loeve.

..there's a tug of war at Wikipedia over Hal Lewis' biography with almost daily revisions. Today it reads --

"In 2010, after 67 years of membership, Lewis resigned from the APS, citing the group's support for what he called the "global warming scam"." [en.wikipedia.org]

But that's not precisely true is it? Lewis resigned over APS Management (HQ) gaming to suppress conversation about the merits of the APS council's 2007 climate change National Policy statement --

"APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?

"I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people's motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don't think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. "[www.thegwpf.org]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2010 11:38PM by loeve.

KidRaw,

Yes. Care to have a go? Anyone? Would love to hear a sensical, supported explanation . . . anyone? Shan't hold me breath, but, anyone?

Has anyone seen examples of Global Warming "Art"? I think this IPCC graph qualifies on several counts including its novel presentation of the word "Dioxode" --

[www.ipcc.ch]

This explains everything:

Quote

The oil companies never had a chance up against a world of true believers.

[throws hands up]I'm out, I'm out dudes.

I guess we found out what a joke the "Nobel Peace Prize" is

The whole "Man-Made" Global Warming scenario was acceptable to the layperson, until they introduced the "Cap and Trade" Scheme, and then we became suspicious -

Wall Street Extorts Kyoto Protocol: Lehman, Enron and other Cap-and-Trade Coincidences -

[www.energytribune.com]

(If you don't like that website, here's another one with the same article by this guy Chris Horner, who I've heard being interviewed -

[cei.org] )

"Political correctness and other pressures to “go along” are one thing. But aggressively tying one’s corporate fate to such things as carbon (energy) rationing is another matter entirely. So far, the track record of such companies is not good."

Nice article. I lost a little trading in Enron stock at the time of its collapse and always wondered what went on behind the scenes. I did better with Calpine which was heavily invested in gas which I suppose is clean burning and so would probably gain from carbon trading and they lobby for it. That's clearer for me now. Thanks!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/25/2010 11:24AM by loeve.

Climate scientist Judith Curry has just submitted a paper on climate uncertainty, and recalls her visceral reaction to reading the climategate emails.

Heresy and the creation of monsters --

[judithcurry.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2010 11:19AM by loeve.

Didn't Micheal Criton write a book about this topic? Some novel about how its fabricated for political purposes? Something about undermining american values or something.

I'm kind of tired about hearing about climate and the environment. I have heard about it since as long as I can remember, yet most people aren't particularly interested in doing something real. I tried doing a few things to help, but it turned out that it was a drop in the bucket, and didn't really make a difference.

I also noticed that people who don't really care are liberated in thought, and seem to be prospering, focusing on money matters and agressive money making careers, and investing in companies who do the same.

Mislu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > I also noticed that people who don't really care
> are liberated in thought, and seem to be
> prospering, focusing on money matters and
> agressive money making careers, and investing in
> companies who do the same.

Well, that doesn't describe me at all and well, I don't really care. It is much bigger than me and beyond my control. I care enough to vote responsibly and to feel badly about the islands disappearing into the ocean and the shoreline devouring a couple feet of land each year. Beyond that... not much I can do.

Rocketship,
I feel like there isn't much I can do either. The people I am thinking of are way beyond wanting to do something positive. In fact maybe they are in the very businesses which contribute to the problems the most.

Re Hal Lewis' Wikipedia biography, the old "citing the Global Warming scam" reason for Lewis'resignation has been edited to read --

"Resignation from APS
"Lewis was a fellow of the American Physical Society. In 2010, after 67 years of membership, Lewis resigned from the APS, citing "corruption" from "the (Government-supplied) money flood". His letter claims that the APS has changed from an organization that seeks to further scientific knowledge, to an organization that suppresses science in its attempt to obtain further funding from government agencies. The majority of his letter details his criticism of the group's support for what he called the "global warming scam", which he claims is the yearly source of millions of dollars of funding for scientific organizations, and that the loss of that funding would be devastating to those organizations.[12][13]" [en.wikipedia.org]

I've a feeling William Connolley and others will be back for further editing, which it surely needs.

The Royal Society of the UK is somewhat analogous to the American Physical Society, and they have just come out with a new statement on climate change in response to a petition of some of their membership. The new statement acknowleges more the uncertainty in climate science saying we don't know exactly how climate has changed in the past or how it will in the future. I sort of liked their old statement that at least referenced specific studies whereas the new statement references the IPCC. It's sort of a wash for me, though a good sign that they are at least listening and responding.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/30/2010 11:09AM by loeve.

The International Panel on Climate Control (IPCC) was caught referencing a magazine article where an Indian scientist was saying that in 35 years the Himalayan glaciers could be gone. That's against IPCC policy to reference popular print articles (that are not peer reviewed science) and the Indian scientist later said the IPCC should not be quoting from magazines. The IPCC said that was a mistake in the 3000 page full report but was not part of the 1000 page climate change report that we see online.

I read the IPCC knew it was not a proper source and printed it anyway.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/30/2010 11:54AM by loeve.

This globalwarmingart.com site has some nice images done by a physics PhD. This one shows atmospheric co2 over the last 500 million years, as opposed to other graphs showing it over the last 50, 100 or 500 thousand years. Co2 has varied a lot over the ages, up to 20 times what's in the atmosphere today (notice the huge error bars) --


Edit: Sorry the link didn't work (strange) but it does exist on Wikipedea or at globalwarmingart.com.

There's a move in the climate change community to "hide the decline", to erase the past. Sounds Orwellian doesn't it..



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/01/2010 01:12PM by loeve.

Here's that co2 graph (hopefully) going back 500 million years --

[www.theresilientearth.com]

..just looking at that co2 graph and noticing the rise and fall of the dinosaurs (65-230 million years ago) corresponds with a rise and fall of atmospheric co2. Maybe the higher atmospheric co2 made the plants grow very well which in turn enabled dinosaurs to grow very large. When the co2 fell off the dinosaurs went away.