Sign In »
Register Now!
Help
NileQueen, on 18 February 2012 - 00:22, said:
Do you really share DNA with beetles or tulips?
Yes, so do you
Quote
It's a good thing you don't have those powers, Peter.
And you likewise.
Exposed: the anti-climate science machine - Heartlandgate
#101
Posted 18 February 2012 - 07:14
Yes, so do you
And you likewise.
#102 Guest_Chris Lloyd_*
Posted 18 February 2012 - 10:46
ldavidcooke, on 18 February 2012 - 01:39, said:
Hey Chris,
Not fair you left out my point about the optical depth in the 15um band. In short, it is clear that the optical depth facing out into space is less translucent and more opaque. (Note: We are not talking about light pollution blocking out the stars, or jet contrails either!)
The point is the effects are present, are measurable and accurately, no less. As I said the cause remains debateable, though many will suggest water vapor is the cause of global warming, whereas others that it is a feedback. Dr. Susan Solomon, of NOAA fame, had stated that in the troposphere it appeared that the water vapor content appears to be lower then several years back, while at the same time it appears that the Stratosphere water vapor content was increasing. This is a problem for scientist, as many models suggest warming of the atmosphere should increase water vapor in the troposphere.
All of this just goes to show we really do not have a clear signal as to root cause and effect are. (I had hoped n 2002, when NCAR had set up the lidar testing range in the US South West, they would have done experiment to hetrodyne CO2 to try to verify the density. (It was to be a simple experiment in which I had hoped that a satellite and ground station equipped wth lasers snd mirrors could pump up CO2 energy states to try to measure the resident altitude for the bulk of the CO2. (When the experiment then evolved in 2004, to using GPS and atmospheric sodium, well needless to say, I realized the opportunity was lost.)) However, that there is a change in atmospheric heat flow appears certain.
As to politics, as long as we are generally talkng about how it works in relation to climate change that is appropriate. The issue is when someone suggests that their pov is the only correct pov and their political interest says so. In that regard, it is science that must prove the point, not political affiliation, or economic theory..., does that help clarify the difference?
Not fair you left out my point about the optical depth in the 15um band. In short, it is clear that the optical depth facing out into space is less translucent and more opaque. (Note: We are not talking about light pollution blocking out the stars, or jet contrails either!)
The point is the effects are present, are measurable and accurately, no less. As I said the cause remains debateable, though many will suggest water vapor is the cause of global warming, whereas others that it is a feedback. Dr. Susan Solomon, of NOAA fame, had stated that in the troposphere it appeared that the water vapor content appears to be lower then several years back, while at the same time it appears that the Stratosphere water vapor content was increasing. This is a problem for scientist, as many models suggest warming of the atmosphere should increase water vapor in the troposphere.
All of this just goes to show we really do not have a clear signal as to root cause and effect are. (I had hoped n 2002, when NCAR had set up the lidar testing range in the US South West, they would have done experiment to hetrodyne CO2 to try to verify the density. (It was to be a simple experiment in which I had hoped that a satellite and ground station equipped wth lasers snd mirrors could pump up CO2 energy states to try to measure the resident altitude for the bulk of the CO2. (When the experiment then evolved in 2004, to using GPS and atmospheric sodium, well needless to say, I realized the opportunity was lost.)) However, that there is a change in atmospheric heat flow appears certain.
As to politics, as long as we are generally talkng about how it works in relation to climate change that is appropriate. The issue is when someone suggests that their pov is the only correct pov and their political interest says so. In that regard, it is science that must prove the point, not political affiliation, or economic theory..., does that help clarify the difference?
I left it out Dave because this thread is about the science machine. There are plenty of threads in Analysis that discuss the science. I do read your comments , even if I don't always comment on them.
#103
- Group: Registered Climate Users
- Posts: 4421
- Joined: 16-July 03
Posted 18 February 2012 - 12:44
Meanwhile the Heartland memo is looking faker by the minute.
#104
- Group: Executive
- Posts: 23774
- Joined: 15-October 02
- LocationEvesham, Worcs
Posted 18 February 2012 - 13:58
Meanwhile, over on the other side, Heartland Institute faces fresh scrutiny over tax status
#105
Posted 18 February 2012 - 16:25
Andre, briefly - the rugby! - the strategy is alleged to be a fake but there is no such comment re - the rest of the stuff, which pretty much confirms what the strategy says. If this was Climategate, they'd have everything minus the strategy and still build an argument that painted a ten times worse scenario than what we would have if the strategy was real LOL! Such is the nature of this warfare....
Cheers - John
Cheers - John
#106
- Group: Executive
- Posts: 23774
- Joined: 15-October 02
- LocationEvesham, Worcs
Posted 18 February 2012 - 21:29
An open letter to the Heartland Institute
Do not do unto others as you would wish they do not do unto you
Do not do unto others as you would wish they do not do unto you
#107
Posted 19 February 2012 - 10:39
This is another rather interesting development involving some Republicans:
http://getenergysmar...-investigation/
Cheers - John
http://getenergysmar...-investigation/
Cheers - John
#108
- Group: Registered Climate Users
- Posts: 4421
- Joined: 16-July 03
Posted 21 February 2012 - 08:55
This is interesting too
Obviously this is likely the document in the "you're speaking with my dad" style.
Quote
At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute's climate program strategy. It contained information about their funders and the Institute's apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about climate science and policy. I do not know the source of that original document...
Obviously this is likely the document in the "you're speaking with my dad" style.
#109
- Group: Registered Climate Users
- Posts: 4421
- Joined: 16-July 03
Posted 21 February 2012 - 09:29
Wanted to edit my post to include Judith Curry's reaction but I was too late:
Quote
Gleick on integrity:
I even referenced his testimony in my uncertainty monster paper.
My first interaction with Gleick was he invited me to speak in an AGU session that he was organizing on the integrity of science, my presentation can be found here.
He has made it known to me via email that he has been displeased with my “behavior.” I seem to have gotten his goat to have been mentioned in the fake Heartland strategy doc (hard to believe that he didn’t write this).
The irony of it all, this coming from a scientist that has made a particular point about integrity and written many essays and even testified to congress on the subject.
By Judith Curry
I even referenced his testimony in my uncertainty monster paper.
My first interaction with Gleick was he invited me to speak in an AGU session that he was organizing on the integrity of science, my presentation can be found here.
He has made it known to me via email that he has been displeased with my “behavior.” I seem to have gotten his goat to have been mentioned in the fake Heartland strategy doc (hard to believe that he didn’t write this).
The irony of it all, this coming from a scientist that has made a particular point about integrity and written many essays and even testified to congress on the subject.
By Judith Curry
This post has been edited by andre: 21 February 2012 - 09:31
#110
Posted 21 February 2012 - 10:01
Gleick went well beyond fair play in what he did - his conduct was at the level of tabloid journalists and political advocacy organisations playing dirty tricks - hang on a minute, that means he simply did what is considered normal in many circles! But credit where credit's due. He owned up and apologised in public.
This development has gone some way to clearing up the uncertainties. We now know first-hand that the Strategy document and the rest can be regarded as separate items. That he received the former in the post fits with it having been scanned by him recently, but we're still none the wiser as to who sent it to him and why. However, it appears that the rest of the documents are likely genuine as he admits that he got Heartland to send them to him and he explicitly states that no alterations have been made.
Gleick's full statement at the Huffington Post can be read here, for anyone who is interested:
http://www.huffingto..._b_1289669.html
And so it goes on.....
Cheers - John
This development has gone some way to clearing up the uncertainties. We now know first-hand that the Strategy document and the rest can be regarded as separate items. That he received the former in the post fits with it having been scanned by him recently, but we're still none the wiser as to who sent it to him and why. However, it appears that the rest of the documents are likely genuine as he admits that he got Heartland to send them to him and he explicitly states that no alterations have been made.
Gleick's full statement at the Huffington Post can be read here, for anyone who is interested:
http://www.huffingto..._b_1289669.html
And so it goes on.....
Cheers - John
#111
- Group: Registered Climate Users
- Posts: 4421
- Joined: 16-July 03
Posted 21 February 2012 - 11:56
So the Heartland Institute actually pays the people who are working for them? Where is this world coming to.
Anyway if I wanted to fake a Heartland AGW strategy paper, it would go more like this:
Don't worry about Peter Gleick, he is a martyr who bravely fought -even of the expense of his integrity- against the awful folk devils, who seem happy to endanger the world for a mere thirty pieces of silver
Anyway if I wanted to fake a Heartland AGW strategy paper, it would go more like this:
Quote
The institute has great concern about the intense indoctrination about climate alarmism for which is still no proof at all and which is not warranted by the uncertainty expressed in the scientific literature. It is apprehending that this misrepresentation greatly obscures the real problems the world is facing and that it will be leading to catastrophic decisions for the future of mankind.
Therefore it is imperative that the public is informed about the considerable problems for scientific basis for climate alarmism and hence the institute supports efforts made with that objective.
Therefore it is imperative that the public is informed about the considerable problems for scientific basis for climate alarmism and hence the institute supports efforts made with that objective.
Don't worry about Peter Gleick, he is a martyr who bravely fought -even of the expense of his integrity- against the awful folk devils, who seem happy to endanger the world for a mere thirty pieces of silver
This post has been edited by andre: 21 February 2012 - 11:57
#112
Posted 21 February 2012 - 12:09
LOL Andre - is that quote from the HI? If so, they can't even write English properly, let alone opine on more substantial topics like medicine and the environment!
Cheers - John
Cheers - John
#113
- Group: Registered Climate Users
- Posts: 4421
- Joined: 16-July 03
Posted 21 February 2012 - 12:26
John Mason, on 21 February 2012 - 12:09, said:
LOL Andre - is that quote from the HI? If so, they can't even write English properly, let alone opine on more substantial topics like medicine and the environment!
Cheers - John
Cheers - John
No I just invented it and sure the English is bad, so you are cordialy invited to translate it into flawless Dutch.
This post has been edited by andre: 21 February 2012 - 12:26
#114
Posted 21 February 2012 - 12:35
That's OK then. You had me even more worried for a moment!
Cheers - John
Cheers - John
#115
- Group: Registered Climate Users
- Posts: 2131
- Joined: 24-July 03
- LocationKnoxville Tennessee USA
Posted 21 February 2012 - 13:02
John Mason, on 21 February 2012 - 12:09, said:
LOL Andre - is that quote from the HI? If so, they can't even write English properly, let alone opine on more substantial topics like medicine and the environment!
Cheers - John
Cheers - John
LOL @ JOhn who can't read :-P:
Andre said:
Quote
Anyway if I wanted to fake a Heartland AGW strategy paper, it would go more like this:
Here is a modified version which may help you understand:
The institute has great concern about the intense indoctrination about climate alarmism for which there is is still no proof at all.
The indoctrination is also unwarranted when looking at the degree of uncertainty expressed in the scientific literature.
It is troubling that this misrepresentation greatly obfuscates the real problems the world is facing and that it will no doubt lead to poor decisions with catastrophic outcomes
for the future of mankind.
Therefore, it is imperative that the public be informed about the considerable problems in finding the support for a scientific basis for climate alarmism and hence the institute pays 30 pieces of silver for every effort made with that objective.
Now, I'm waiting on your Dutch translation of this John.
This post has been edited by NileQueen: 21 February 2012 - 13:07
#116
Posted 21 February 2012 - 13:17
I see Climate Depot has multiple images of Gleick and his email address in red type (again, in multiple) all over its front-end. Now, I wonder why that might be. Perhaps it's to encourage people to get in touch to tell him he has been a very naughty boy?
Cheers - John
Cheers - John
#117
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 5160
- Joined: 18-July 06
- LocationGraham, NC USA
Posted 21 February 2012 - 19:43
Hey All,
This thread is rapidly losing its climate and science value and is moving into realm of the media forum...
This thread is rapidly losing its climate and science value and is moving into realm of the media forum...
#118 Guest_Chris Lloyd_*
Posted 21 February 2012 - 20:14
NileQueen, on 21 February 2012 - 13:02, said:
LOL @ JOhn who can't read :-P:
Andre said:
Here is a modified version which may help you understand:
It is troubling that this misrepresentation greatly obfuscates the real problems the world is facing and that it will no doubt lead to poor decisions with catastrophic outcomes
for the future of mankind.
Andre said:
Here is a modified version which may help you understand:
It is troubling that this misrepresentation greatly obfuscates the real problems the world is facing and that it will no doubt lead to poor decisions with catastrophic outcomes
for the future of mankind.
Love it - in a nutshell this is what I have been saying in my thread "The real problem with our planet"
For those that haven't read it LOL here is the link
http://www.ukweather...ith-our-planet/
I do have to laugh sometimes.
That's ok though. If you all wish to repeat what I have said, via other channels then please carry on. I have been saying ot for years.
#119 Guest_Chris Lloyd_*
Posted 21 February 2012 - 20:16
.
Duplicated post for some reason - sorry mods
Duplicated post for some reason - sorry mods
This post has been edited by Chris Lloyd: 21 February 2012 - 20:17
#120
- Group: Registered Climate Users
- Posts: 2131
- Joined: 24-July 03
- LocationKnoxville Tennessee USA
Posted 21 February 2012 - 22:03
ldavidcooke, on 21 February 2012 - 19:43, said:
Hey All,
This thread is rapidly losing its climate and science value and is moving into realm of the media forum...
This thread is rapidly losing its climate and science value and is moving into realm of the media forum...
Didn't the opening post start that way? And it has taken you this long to recognize it?
It is a climate and earth science CHAT forum, David.
