explained scientific climate data v. organizational consent

Miscellaneous Current Events
1

This interview between Monckton and a greenpeace activist not only gives scientific data on climate from such sources as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of Illinois, but the explicit psychology of organizational consent that sacrifies all that pertains to an independent mind, ie. individuality. This shows how people tend to take on faith what presents itself as legitimate, but instead usurps the skills of critical thinking. Monckton was able to probe the activist deeply and get a conversation going into the mindset of a person under the spell of lies and what a well dressed package of lies under the deceitful guise of organizational legitimacy does to a person. As he asks her near the end of the interview:

Monckton: pertaining to if he showed her the facts directly from the sources he provided “…would you (she) think that therefore the organization that you believe in has misled you?”

Greenpeace activist: “No”

Then he repeats the question with more explanation and then she provides a more open explanation of her own in turn in which she may concede his point. Her initial reflexive answer, though, was truly outstanding. This lady appeared to be very intelligient and informed so this wasn’t the sterotypical ‘man on the street’ or ‘uneducated fool’ being interviewed.

2

If you really plot the global temp from the last ten years w a least squares fit regression line, does temperature really go down?

3

I don’t know, but it goes to show a statist will side with some kind of issue and support it being forced through, at the coercive expense of others. animalistic.

4

There is an issue with urban warming supposedly. If you remove the readings taken from large urban area’s the tempurature would appear to have gone down. The problem is most of the data is taken from urban area’s that is subject to urban heating. As cities get bigger they get warmer. It’s a problem alarmists want to use to their advantage, and anti-alarmists also want to use to their advantage only in an opposite sense.

5

A friend of mine is a climatologist, and I suggested he saw Monckton’s presentation. He just laughed at it, however, and called it “populistic and unscientiific”.

6

it’s amazing the walls people put up. and he’s supposedly a ‘scientist’ (your friend). A scientist, an individual of knowledge (wanting knowledge), would take note of the sources Monckton presented and check them out. Did your friend already do that beforehand? Did he already know about those sources and the data thereof?

7

Im just going to throw this out there: Mockington is not the reason I don’t buy global warming. Its things I’ve heard my geology professors say that have led me to look into the raw data. I personally don’t like Mockington’s style. I find it a bit of a turn off. I think most opponents he interviews do too. He wins in person but imo loses on camera.

You should try “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. It has been updated to address criticisms. It is quite an informative documentary. The first half is why GW is false, and the second half is how/why they’ve gone about creating it.

8

Where can I find raw data?

9

Good question. One that’s been asked many times and lead to more than one FOIA request…

Some of the raw data is available on public servers from the various sources. I think McIntyre at climateaudit.org has some links posted. Unless you’re willing to bury yourself in Excel and Fortran though, I’d suggest reading their various postings on the problems with the studies done to date.

10

In one of the CRU emails that’s now public, I think Trenberth suggests this very approach to dismissing criticisms over engaging skeptics on the science. The email itself was I believe posted at Anthony Watts’ site, but I can’t find it currently.

11

I must find that quote!

12

pwned?

13

Indeed, it is very disappointing. I try to remember myself pre-philosophy, but I was never as vicious as these people.

14

I believe AGW is real. I also have yet to meet a leftist who will endorse any real solutions to it (free market nuclear energy, privately owned roads that make people pay every time they drive, ending subsidies to polluters, abolishing all taxes and red tape that currently smother innovators, etc.)

15

Ron Bailey on their hypocrisy:

http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/22/fast-breeder-reactors-and-the

16

Its funny. We subsidize oil. But then want to tax it further with capntax. Don’t the two things seem contradictory?

17

Is this true or not?

Is it true that the CO2 concentration has varied between 190 and 290 ppm over the last 800 000 years, and that it has risen to 390 ppm over the last 150 years?

Is it true that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere hasn’t been higher for millions of years?

Is it true that the CO2 concentration in the oceans fucks up coral reefs these days?

This is an climate expert, so either he speaks the truth, or he lies. Why would he lie?

18

The description of the video uses the word “denier” to describe skeptics. I would not consider any source that uses the word “denier” as trustworthy. It also states that existence of skeptical peer-review is “quite low” - this is a lie,

500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming

As for RealClimate.org…

The Truth about RealClimate.org

“RealClimate.org is assumed by those who do not know any better to be an “objective” source on climate change. It features activist scientists with degrees in Geology, Geosciences, Mathematics, Oceanography and Physics who are all self proclaimed “climatologists”. Yet skeptical scientists with equivalent credentials are not (probably because they have not proclaimed it). Essentially the site exists to promote global warming alarm-ism and attack anyone who does not agree with their declaration of doomsday (proven of course by their own computer climate models) and the need for government intervention against the life supporting, atmospheric trace gas, carbon dioxide. Standard operating procedure is to post “rebuttals” to everything they disagree with and then declare victory, making sure to censor comments challenging their position. It doesn’t matter if they actual rebutted any of the science or facts just so long as they provide the existence of a criticism. This gives their fanboys “ammunition” to further promote alarmist propaganda across the Internet (and of course declare victory). Their resident propagandist William Connolley’s job is to edit dissent and smear skeptical scientists on Wikipedia. In the world of global warming alarmist “science” pretending you win is apparently all that matters because in real debates they lose. The truth is that RealClimate.org is an environmentalist shill site directly connected to an eco-activist group, Environmental Media Services and Al Gore but they don’t want you to know that.”

Here are much better presentations,

Patrick J. Michaels: Climate of Extremes (Video) (60min) (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Climatology)

Richard S. Lindzen: Deconstructing Global Warming (Video) (55min) (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT)

This is disputed,

180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 2, pp. 259-282, March 2007)

  • Ernst-Georg Beck

Do glaciers tell a true atmospheric CO2 story? (PDF)
(Science of the Total Environment, Volume 114, pp. 227-284, August 1992)

  • Zbigniew Jaworowski, Tom V. Segalstad, N. Ono

The hysteria over coral reefs is not justified,

Global warming good news for coral reefs (University of New South Wales, Australia)

Coral reef calcification and climate change: The effect of ocean warming (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Number 22, November 2004)

  • Ben I. McNeil, Richard J. Matear, David J. Barnes

“Our results suggest that present coral reef calcification rates are equivalent to levels in the late 19th century and does not support previous suggestions of large and potentially catastrophic decreases in the future.”

19

How about this one? Saw it in the news today:

"A new report reveals a British scientist and Wikipedia administrator rewrote climate history, editing more than 5,000 unique articles in the online encyclopedia to cover traces of a medieval warming period – something Climategate scientists saw as a major roadblock in the effort to spread the global warming message.

Recently hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit expose a plot to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period, a 400-year era that began around A.D. 1000, the Financial Post’s Lawrence Solomon reports.

The warming period is said to have improved agriculture and increased life spans, but scientists at the center of the Climategate e-mail scandal believed the era undermined their goal of spreading concern about global warming as it pertains to today’s climate.

Solomon noted the warming period presented a dilemma long before the Climategate e-mail scandal.

A 1995 e-mail predating the recent Climate Research Unit scandal was sent to geophysicist David Deming. A major climate-change researcher told Deming, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period…

…“But the U.N.'s official verdict that the Medieval Warm Period had not existed did not erase the countless schoolbooks, encyclopedias, and other scholarly sources that claimed it had,” Solomon wrote. "Rewriting those would take decades, time that the band members didn’t have if they were to save the globe from warming…

…This role as a Wikipedia administrator, Connolley is said to have created or rewritten 5,428 unique Wikipedia entries.

“When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it – more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand,” Solomon wrote. “When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred – over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions.”

Meanwhile, followers who adhered to Connolley’s climate views “were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings,” Solomon contends.

Through his control of the Wikipedia pages, Connolley is said to have “turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.”

Facts about the Medieval Warm Period and criticism of global warming doctrine were purportedly scrubbed from Wikipedia’s pages."

Read more here.

20

What’s the name of the movie that debunks An Inconvenient Truth?