More Deception from the L.A. Times on Global Warming
OH MY GOD THE GREENLAND ICE SHEET IS MELTING AND IT HASN’T BEEN THIS BAD IN 132 YEARS!!!!!!!
During a four-day period earlier this month, 47% of the surface of the Greenland ice sheet melted, bringing the total melted area to 97% of the surface, according to NASA.
The melting is the worst that has been observed since researchers have been monitoring the ice sheet, the agency said in a statement posted on its website. According to records from ice cores, it is the worst melt since 1889.
Holy crap! And there’s this SCARY picture to go with it:
It’s MELTING!!!!!!!!
So what’s the source for this? Well, the good folks at the L.A. Times, where this fine article appears, have placed the useful link to the NASA statement right there in the article! See there, where it says “website“? Look how convenient that is! Just click on that!
. . . and you get: http://www.nasa.gov/
. . . the NASA website. Yup, that’s it all right.
Is there a reason they didn’t provide the direct link to the press release? Well, the cynic in me says: yeah there is. And here’s the reason: if you went and found the actual link to the actual press release (hint: I did and it’s here), you might see this:
“Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data.
So: it’s the worst melt since 150 years ago . . . but what they don’t tell you is, a really bad melt happens every 150 years or so.
Does that mean we’re totally in the clear? Not necessarily. She goes on to say: “But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome.”
Well, yeah. If Halley’s Comet returned one year after its next appearance, I guess that would be worrisome. But it would be kind of irresponsible for journalists around 2060 to suggest that we needed to be SUPER WORRIED ABOUT THIS BIG BALL OF FIRE IN THE SKY because nothing like this had appeared in the sky for 75 years . . . without telling you that this particular ball of fire in the sky appears every 75 years or so — and thus, is “right on time.”
If anyone knows how the editors of this rag could possibly justify such rank deception, let me know.
Thanks to Gary H.
Ding dong.
Patterico (feda6b) — 7/25/2012 @ 6:52 pmBut remember, its the skeptics that are anti-science … sheesh.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/25/2012 @ 6:53 pmThe things people will do to support their agenda is amazing. It’s almost like an addiction.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/25/2012 @ 6:57 pmBecause it’s for the chillun, or something…
Gazzer (b9d4fc) — 7/25/2012 @ 7:01 pmYeah, I listened to this story on NPR tonight. Evidently the melt has already re-frozen and they’re building up the potential of cracking due to crevasses filling and water then expanding and OH.MY.GOD if water makes it all the way to the bottom the friggen thing could slide into the ocean.
Seems like a map high-lighting blunder that some nervous nellie went ape-sh*t over.
The AO, Arctic Oscillation, a description of water current fluctuations, is in a negative phase. Water normally flowing into the Arctic from the Gulf Stream has turned west past Greenland and then circling points south.
Meanwhile water is exiting thru the Bering Straits, reason for exceptionally cold weather for Alaska last winter.
This in turn is giving England its coldest, wettest summer on record.
Not Global Warming, not Climate Change, just cyclic fluctuation, perhaps related to the Sun being comparatively quiet since 2005.
Ever notice the temperature drop at night?
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 7/25/2012 @ 7:03 pmhttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/24/greenland-ice-melt-every-150-years-is-right-on-time/
“On average in the summer, about half of the surface of Greenland’s ice sheet naturally melts. At high elevations, most of that melt water quickly refreezes in place. Near the coast, some of the melt water is retained by the ice sheet and the rest is lost to the ocean. But this year the extent of ice melting at or near the surface jumped dramatically. According to satellite data, an estimated 97 percent of the ice sheet surface thawed at some point in mid-July.”
They are talking ‘at the surface’, the glacier is miles deep in its center.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 7/25/2012 @ 7:14 pmTo be fair, they probably don’t have anyone left in the newsroom who knows what URL means. This looks more like the contribution of an intern than any direct attempt to mislead. Of course, it’s damn convenient for them, but the attempt to mislead comes WELL before we get to that link.
Riddle: What use is a newspaper that continuously lies to you?
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 7/25/2012 @ 7:43 pmOH.MY.GOD if water makes it all the way to the bottom the friggen thing could slide into the ocean.
The whole thing might TIP OVER !!!1!!1!!
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 7/25/2012 @ 7:48 pmJust like Guam!
Gazzer (b9d4fc) — 7/25/2012 @ 7:54 pmD’oh! I didn’t click on the link. Obviously.
Gazzer (b9d4fc) — 7/25/2012 @ 7:54 pmThat will only happen if we station Marines on it.
But don’t worry, Kevin, Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Mensa) will lead the charge in Congress to put a stop to that!
Steve57 (386607) — 7/25/2012 @ 7:56 pmDiane Sawyer thought this was a pretty big deal tonight too. It was one of the headline stories on the nightly news. Its a “melt mystery”.
elissa (dfda4c) — 7/25/2012 @ 7:59 pmThe AGW skeptics shouted to anyone who would listen that the predicted and cyclical and vastly increased solar activity, which has come to pass in the past year, would result in significant increases in observed temps and other phenomena.
Now, their theses are proven correct. Unlike the AGW alarmists’ ludicrous extrapolations.
This is most definitely the Twilight Zone year of years for media. Staggeringly so.
Ed from SFV (1c1abc) — 7/25/2012 @ 8:06 pmThese pretzels are making me thirsty!
pdbuttons (1ad69e) — 7/25/2012 @ 8:21 pmANTI SCIENCE DENIERS !!!!!!!!!
JD (b22d65) — 7/25/2012 @ 9:10 pmMultiple viewing opportunities! Multiple pages written! From sea to shining sea! A convergence of stories about the exact same thing on the same day. Some would call it a coincidence. Many would not call it a coincidence.
elissa (dfda4c) — 7/25/2012 @ 9:41 pmPatrick, if the same melt happens to Greenland next year too, you promise to worry?
For the contiguous United States, the first six months of 2012 have been the warmest ever on record, says NOAA.
There’s no way to get around the physics. Carbon dioxide prevents infrared radiation from escaping from Earth into space. The more CO2 in the air, the warmer we’ll get. Scientists have been predicting this for more than a century. A Swedish Nobel laureate named Arrhenius predicted it first.
We really need to go nuclear in a big way.
Andrew (fd3a92) — 7/25/2012 @ 11:09 pmok: i give up:
why are my links to information on this so called melt being eaten?
did that a55munch tye spoof my ISP?
redc1c4 (403dff) — 7/25/2012 @ 11:17 pmlet’s try this again, for the “we’re all gonna die” crowd….
where’s the beef?
redc1c4 (403dff) — 7/25/2012 @ 11:20 pm17. “There’s no way to get around the physics. Carbon dioxide prevents infrared radiation from escaping from Earth into space.”
Sorry Andy, the emissivity of atmospheric CO2, a low temperature gas, is 1/1000th that of dirt or green leaves, less than 1/500th that of water.
Emissivity is directly related to the speed of radiative interaction.
On absorption the kinetic energy of the CO2 molecule is raised, primarily in bond vibration energy. This kinetic energy is instantly shared via collision with surrounding molecules of the atmosphere, wherein CO2 comprises 350 ppm.
IOW, CO2 shares the energy absorbed immediately before it can re-emit, and even if it manages the tide of emission is overwhelmingly from earth’s surface to space.
Venus’ atmosphere is 96% CO2, or 960,000 ppm. There you would have a point. If you knew some physics.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 7/25/2012 @ 11:47 pmOops, Andy the troll picked the wrong blog. Quick Tyke, help him out.
Gazzer (b9d4fc) — 7/26/2012 @ 12:09 amThanks Gary, for an intelligent-sounding reply. I’m no expert on atmospheric science, but it sounds like you’re not disputing the amount of outgoing infrared radiation that is absorbed by carbon dioxide. Whether or not that absorbed energy is shared kinetically with other molecules aside from CO2, or instead is reradiates in all directions by the CO2, still it’s energy that was largely blocked from leaving the Earth’s atmosphere, so I don’t see why you’re unconcerned about it. Perhaps if you would cite a source, I could study the matter some more. I have an open mind about it.
Andrew (954540) — 7/26/2012 @ 1:11 amThat last part has a very familiar ring to it
Icy (f7bae5) — 7/26/2012 @ 1:42 amThey’re unprincipled charlatans with an axe to grind?
That’s pretty much the standard reason for all sorts of rank deception.
Smock Puppet, Like... Duh? (8e2a3d) — 7/26/2012 @ 2:09 amSo says someone whose mental concept of an electron is slightly smaller than THIS >>.<< period.
The universe is jusssst a bit more complicated in its workings than your meager grasp of “physics” can handle.
So, when you say “there’s no way to get around the physics”, you don’t grasp how the physics is shaped at all, much less what might get “around” it.
FACT: There’s a specific layer of the atmosphere which would be warming specifically if the whole Greenhouse aspect of AGW was valid. It’s not warming.
FACT: The heat has to GO SOMEWHERE. The most obvious place for it to go would be the oceans, water having some very interesting physical properties. “Physics”, remember? It absorbs heat remarkably effectively. Hence, if the earth’s atmosphere were warming notably, then first the earth’s oceans would have to warm roughly equally. Now, in 2003, they released a number of newly designed probes designed to track the temperature of the oceans, not just on the surface, but deeper down, as well. Since that time, there’s been no detectable increase in the overall thermal balance of the oceans. Ergo — virtually no actual warming of the atmosphere.
You see, one of the things about SCIENCE — it’s about predicting, see. You have a theory. You make predictions about what will happen based on that theory. Then you do experiments to discern if your predictions are correct, thus suggesting the validity (or lack thereof) of your theory.
The key predictions from AGW as a theory fail, and fail miserably.
———————————–
The Schwartzberg Test:
“The validity of a science is its ability to predict”.
———————————–
AGW as a theory winds up with a validity level just slightly below astrology.
And making predictions accurately isn’t sufficient. The whole thing never ends. Look up “aether physics”. It was a theory of how light propagated, and was in vogue for a very, very long time. There was a great deal of “consensus” that it was totally right.
Then two guys did a single, solitary experiment… and, from the results, everyone knew the whole notion of aether physics was utterly and completely wrong. From the ashes of aether physics came the whole of our current understanding of quantum electrodynamics, which, so far, has stood all of the tests and challenges thrown at it… and might be disproven tomorrow, nonetheless.
IGotBupkis -- "Faecies Evenio", Mr. Holder? (8e2a3d) — 7/26/2012 @ 2:25 amMaark Twain, a former newspaperman, once wrote “if you don’t read the newspapers, you will be uninformed.” Being a relatively honest person, he immediately followed with “if you do read the newspapers, you will be misinformed.” Change newspapers to media and both statements remain true.
Michael M. Keohane (88b0c3) — 7/26/2012 @ 3:54 amComment by Michael M. Keohane — 7/26/2012 @ 3:54 am
The more things change the more they stay the same.
BTW, there is a reason it is called Greenland. One could argue that even if you wanted to worry about a near complete melt for 2 or more years in a row, that would still be a repeat of known history (which is relatively small amount of history). Perhaps one would only need to worry that something new was happening when the coastal areas of Greenland became too hot to grow temperate climate crops.
Comments by Andrew — 7/25/2012 @ 11:09 pm:
Scientists have been predicting this for more than a century.
I remember when they were predicted a new ice age back in the 1970’s, they being some of the same people who have been predicting warming since late 80’s or so.
We really need to go nuclear in a big way.
That’s a reasonable statement, in and of itself.
FACT: There’s a specific layer of the atmosphere which would be warming specifically if the whole Greenhouse aspect of AGW was valid. It’s not warming.
Comment by IGotBupkis — “Faecies Evenio”, Mr. Holder? — 7/26/2012 @ 2:25 am
How many years of data do we have for this now, IGB? How many years do you think it will take before someone starts to spin on why this isn’t cooperating with the narrative? Any ideas?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/26/2012 @ 4:42 amPerhaps the man-made global warming crowd could explain how the last few ice ages ended, without man-made global warming? From the perspective of the animals on the earth at the time, there sure was a lot of cold climate for years and years, followed by gradual warming. It was so slow the gophers and mammoths didn’t really notice, or record the change, but I’m sure the LA Times would have predicted doom and gloom.
“But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome.”
Well sure, I’d be worried if certain natural cycles didn’t happen as predicted. It was dark last night. I’m sure if it remained dark this morning it would be worrysome. Ooh. It’s summy here. Nevermind.
ukuleledave (c59551) — 7/26/2012 @ 5:24 am==That last part has a very familiar ring to it==
I thought too, Icy. Something in the tone, the cadence sounds familiar, and then at the ending the ghost of a melody we’ve heard here before.
elissa (5c2ac2) — 7/26/2012 @ 5:40 am22. “an intelligent-sounding reply”
Project much? Arrhenius was a physical chemist and indeed, you will find a solute table credited to him in your PChem tome.
Peruse the catalog of a prestigious Climate Science program, e.g., that of George Mason, and you’ll find an offering a “Physics concentration” which entails DiffEq.
Atmospheric Physics is an applied science, decoupling from Physics 50 years ago. They even teach their own Statistics regimen, intercourse with and oversight by the dedicated disciplines ended that long ago.
But please simply consider the science one learns(or was taught once upon a time) in High School:
The oceans have a specific heat capacity 3000 times that of the atmosphere. Hansen’s Law dictates that the solubility of CO2 is directly related to temperature at pressures of 1 Atm.
As the temperatures of oceans rise it leaves solution at the surface and enters the atmosphere. At extreme pressures near 100 Atm and low temperature in the depths it precipitates out of solution.
The oceans contain 50,000 times the CO2 contained in the atmosphere, the Earth’s crust 100,000 times at least.
40% of the radiant Solar energy heating the Earth reaches it in the IR. Only 1% reaches the surface, the rest is absorbed on its way to the surface.
The notion that CO2 can modify any of these relations is founded on Beer’s Law originating in 1798.
The delusion that Climate Science or Atmospheric Physics is beyond the reach of 100,000 engineers, 50,000 physicians, etc., is silly, just preposterous.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 7/26/2012 @ 5:42 am==the first six months of 2012 have been the warmest ever on record, says NOAA==
So? The politics of global warming fear mongers will believe what they want–will believe what they are told to believe. But when they use this kind of quote as, you know, “proof”, they sound so silly. How long have “records” been kept in the United States? How long has there been a contiguous United States? How old is the earth? Oh.
elissa (5c2ac2) — 7/26/2012 @ 6:00 am31. “How old is the earth?”
Indeed. We currently experience an average Global Temperature of something like 56 degrees F., a few degrees above that of the Ice Ages mere 10,000 years or so ago, and in fact, will return to some milennia in the future.
270 Million years ago, when the brontosauri(excuse me, now apatosauri, I show my age) roamed the Earth, and all the continents save Australia were one collectively known as Pangea, the Global Temp was 72 degrees and cloud cover was universal.
All the evidence indicates CO2 maxima and minima follows those of Global Temperature by about 800 years. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is an effect not a cause.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 7/26/2012 @ 6:12 amfollow those* Doh.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 7/26/2012 @ 6:13 amPerhaps if you would cite a source, I could study the matter some more. I have an open mind about it.
Andrew only deals in FACTS people. Except when he doesn’t.
JD (b579c5) — 7/26/2012 @ 6:19 amFor the contiguous United States, the first six months of 2012 have been the warmest ever on record, says NOAA
That is called weather. This type of argument is oft-derided by the alarmists when the weather does not fit their Narrative. When weather is not cooperating with the Narrative, they blame cold weather on warming too. And natural disasters. Because warming causes cooling. And hurricanes.
JD (b579c5) — 7/26/2012 @ 6:26 am34. “A source”.
Fit to the request I suggest the link at 6. to meet your need. Anthony Watts runs one of the more successful sites on the internets, a former TV meterologist out of CA.
He has numerous tools available for study and a couple of years hobby time should suffice with the devotion many of us give to the weather or causal interest in sports.
The mix of opinion is representative of the population at large, IMO.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 7/26/2012 @ 6:32 amI clicked through to the L.A. Times article and found the tone they used substantially different than how you characterize it here. In fact, the tone of the L.A. Times article was rather flat and boring.
I mean, yeah, I get you’re doing. Being sarcastic and mocking and taking a cheap shot, because it appeals to your audience. That’s fine, but if you wanted to make an ACTUAL criticism of the L.A. Times article (you know, based on what they actually say), you probably should have avoided using the word “deception”.
Kman (5576bf) — 7/26/2012 @ 7:02 amIn the same light,
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/07/26/jobless-claims-drop-durable-goods-orders-rise/
narciso (ee31f1) — 7/26/2012 @ 7:04 amBecause of the tone.
JD (b31c02) — 7/26/2012 @ 7:05 am________________________________________________
For the contiguous United States, the first six months of 2012 have been the warmest ever on record, says NOAA.
And that includes the West Coast too? So far, this summer in southern California has been rather temperate and comfortable. I won’t mention all the reports (due to coverage regarding the Olympics) about Britain experiencing a very cool and wet summer.
If billowing amounts of carbon dioxide are to blame, then presumably above-average temperatures should be evident in a more uniform way throughout, for example, the northern hemisphere.
I’ve yet to see any AGW alarmist show a connection between levels of CO2 and the existence of high-pressure systems, which, at least in California, are THE reason that temperatures become very high. BTW, the Midwest has been suffering from heat for several weeks due to the effects of a (drum roll, please) persistent high-pressure ridge in the upper atmosphere.
And keep this in mind: the medical community for decades kept saying that people became overweight because of an over-consumption of fat, while saying nothing about the impact of sugar/carbohydrates. It wasn’t until rather recently that researchers/doctors went “d’oh!!!” and suddenly noticed that excessive amounts of (drum roll, please) sugar were the big problem.
BTW, researching and understanding the human body isn’t necessarily a more gargantuan and complicated task compared with studying and understanding Earth’s climate/atmosphere, much less how it interacts with the tremendous power (and energy and, yes, heat) of the sun.
Mark (1e7702) — 7/26/2012 @ 7:06 amFor anyone who didn’t get it,(or perhaps is intentionally misinterpreting here)–the “tone” and “familiar ring” that Icy and I snarked about did not relate to the LATimes article. It was pretty obviously about another commenter.
elissa (5c2ac2) — 7/26/2012 @ 7:23 amBecause Eric the Red, banished from Norway, wanted to entice people to go there with him and establish settlements. Which isn’t to say that Greenland lacks green coastal areas (it does have them), but the name “Greenland” was basically a misleading PR ploy.
Kman (5576bf) — 7/26/2012 @ 7:24 amKman, that’s an old myth. The truth is that Greenland was lovely for farming the old Dane way, until it very suddenly wasn’t.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 7/26/2012 @ 7:39 amkman – http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/
Sarahw (b0e533) — 7/26/2012 @ 7:41 amYou are all a bunch of New Earth creationist DENIERS!
JD (b31c02) — 7/26/2012 @ 7:52 amJust finished watching the Deadliest Catch finale. This was filmed during this past Winter’s crab season. Worst ice conditions in years. I’m telling ya all, we are heading towards an Ice Age!!
Rich (4967b2) — 7/26/2012 @ 7:52 amHi Sarahw,
From your link:
carlitos (49ef9f) — 7/26/2012 @ 7:53 amHow amusing, Kman is now a Medieval Warm Period denier.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/26/2012 @ 8:01 amI clicked through to the L.A. Times article and found the tone they used substantially different than how you characterize it here. In fact, the tone of the L.A. Times article was rather flat and boring.
— And NOBODY knows “flat and boring” like our Kman.
Icy (f7bae5) — 7/26/2012 @ 8:41 amAnd the Roman period as well.
narciso (ee31f1) — 7/26/2012 @ 8:42 amIn reply people who wanted more details, this is from a July 16 Bloomberg Businessweek report:
My attitude about this is similar to my attitude about aborion: we can’t be certain what’s happening so don’t risk it. We could be getting all our electricity from nuclear.
Andrew (ab67d0) — 7/26/2012 @ 9:02 amGreenland probably wasnt as warm and green as Erik proclaimed, but it was definitely warmer than today. We do have written record and archeological record of greener pastures than today.
However, the science deniers (aka AGW proponents) still cling to the notion of the denial of the MWP. The NOAA website and skeptical science (the website devoted to proving skeptics are stupid oil funded science deniers) have a wonderful graph of the world depicting and comparing the warmth today with the MWP – the chart clearly shows virtually ever spot on the globe being warmer today than during the MWP including all of Greenland. Baffling that ie tree proxies and ice core proxies are better temp reconstructions than archeological records – maybe not baffling in the world of climate science.
Joe (a00dc1) — 7/26/2012 @ 9:10 amArrhenius did not predict doom and gloom, though.
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 7/26/2012 @ 9:19 amFor the contiguous United States, the first six months of 2012 have been the warmest ever on record, says NOAA
All one needs to do is find someone old enough to remember the high temperatures and drought of the early 30’s, and the current conditions will become, “I’ve seen this before”.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/26/2012 @ 9:34 amCorrect. He thought humans would add CO2 at a much, much slower rate. Also, he was optimistic that this would yield a more hospitable climate, and he was right. It appears that addition of CO2 may well have stopped a cooling trend and prevented another ice age.
Andrew (2a0f2a) — 7/26/2012 @ 9:42 amIt appears that addition of CO2 may well have stopped a cooling trend and prevented another ice age.
Comment by Andrew — 7/26/2012 @ 9:42 am
If someone wants to pull the “We base our ideas on science and you don’t” nonsense, show me the controlled experiments that differentiate that statement from using a CO2 sensitive divining rod.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/26/2012 @ 9:49 am==He thought humans would add CO2 at a much, much slower rate. ….the addition of CO2 may well have stopped a cooling trend and prevented another ice age==
Andrew seems very enamored by the power of man to influence the mighty universe.
elissa (5c2ac2) — 7/26/2012 @ 9:58 amThe reality is that the increases in CO2 don’t account for very much of the predicted warming. Rather, the argument of the AGW proponents is that the CO2 works with other aspects of our climate that “force” larger changes.
The problem is that these “forcings” are not well understood and are represented in the models by estimates of their factor which vary wildly in range.
We don’t have good explanations for why the observed temperature increases over the last century or so vary, and don’t match our belief in the amount of CO2 being added.
But then, its become clear that the actual temperature records themselves are rather corrupted.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/26/2012 @ 10:03 amAs IGotBupkis said above, I’ve read where for a few (?how many) years now “we” have been measuring temperatures directly in certain layers/parts of the atmosphere that should track with “Global Temperature”. More than that I know nothing. Maybe he or Gary G. will tell us more. When I read about it, it seemed that there would be some hard data to stop the GW crowd, assuming they are not the ones with primary access to the data.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/26/2012 @ 10:11 amMy attitude about this is similar to my attitude about aborion: we can’t be certain what’s happening so don’t risk it. We could be getting all our electricity from nuclear.
Comment by Andrew — 7/26/2012 @ 9:02 am
— The question of whether or not man’s activity has significantly affected the climate equates to the question of whether or not a child in the womb is really alive?
Beautiful analogy; just lovely.
Icy (f7bae5) — 7/26/2012 @ 10:12 amMD in Philly, there is data on the atmospheric temperature that comes from analysis of satellite data. That data does not match the surface temperature, it shows less increases in temp and AGW theory does not explain why it does not.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/26/2012 @ 10:13 amThanks, SPQR. My understanding is that the type of data most relevant haven’t been around that long and that is the current weakness in using it to put a stop to the AWG people. But again, that is my general perception of a topic I know little detail on.
Andrew, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that when uncertain, make the “safest” decision, the one least likely for bad consequences. Hence, in the situation of abortion, if one can’t say for sure “just how human” the unborn child is, then the decision should be for life.
In a similar way, if AWG might be true, maybe we better prepare in case. A good friend of (University Professor Emeritus in plant biochemistry) has voiced that approach. The problem is, there is likely nothing we in the US could do about it even if we wanted to, and if somehow an attempted forced compliance worldwide was mandated, you would be dooming billions of people to continue to live in “underdeveloped” conditions, not to mention havoc in industrialized nations which would further depress conditions in developing nations.
Contrary to Nancy Pelosi’s belief, I do like clean air and water, I just want decisions based on demonstrable science and reality based policy interventions, not hypothetical computer models that do not match observed data and suggested policy actions that do nothing to help and only find other ways to hurt. More nuclear energy would be great, before everyone in the US who remembers how to build one dies, like everyone who can remember how to make an Apollo Mission happen. (JFK wanted to put a man on the moon within the decade, Obama has killed the US space program in less than 3 years.)
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/26/2012 @ 10:30 amMD in Philly asked for “controlled experiments” to support the statement that “addition of CO2 may well have stopped a cooling trend and prevented another ice age.” This July 12 news report helps to support it:
Andrew (ab67d0) — 7/26/2012 @ 10:33 amThe press is struggling to come up with an angle on this one because 150 years is just a tad beyond the usual news cycle of 150 hours.
Icy (f7bae5) — 7/26/2012 @ 11:07 amThere’s something to be said for leading by example. There’s also something to be said for laws that prohibit aiding and abetting even if the people who are aided and abetted would have done the same thing even if they had no help. Certainly China wouldn’t be condemned to poverty if they scrap plans to build coal plants and instead increase the number of nuclear plants that they already are scheduled to build. I think switching the world over to nuclear electricity could be one of the great economic stimulus measures of all time.
Andrew (6e7e19) — 7/26/2012 @ 11:08 amGreenland got its name from the fact that in the 1200’s to 1300’s the entire island was fertile farmland.
jwarner (042e7e) — 7/26/2012 @ 11:11 amComment by Mark — 7/26/2012 @ 7:06 am
And keep this in mind: the medical community for decades kept saying that people became overweight because of an over-consumption of fat, while saying nothing about the impact of sugar/carbohydrates. It wasn’t until rather recently that researchers/doctors went “d’oh!!!” and suddenly noticed that excessive amounts of (drum roll, please) sugar were the big problem.
Not really sugar, carbohydrates. It’s not new, either.
Nora Ephron wrote in her last book “I Remember Nothing (Vintage 2010) that she’d known this all her life:
http://tinyurl.com/d8d3udh
or if you prefer to check first:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/d8d3udh
But she had a hard time arguing with people, also with people who thought eating eggs caused a rise in body cholesterol, or who avoided egg yolks.
And Dr. Atkins, who claimed to have stumbled on this fact in 1963, wasn’t the first.
There was a best selling book in 1961 (Nora Ephron was 20 years old in 1961) called “Calories Don’t Count” by Herman Taller (Simon and Schuster) but he was persecuted by the FDA, who claimed he had written the book to sell safflower oil capsules, and even that he hadn’t written the book himself, but it had been ghostwritten by laymen, and he was arrested and jailed after being convicted of mail fraud and conspiracy in 1967, and his book forgotten.
Th American Heart Association,or whoever had a very good lobby. The disinformation about fat goes back to the 1950s.
Sammy Finkelman (f560b6) — 7/26/2012 @ 11:15 amWe really need to go nuclear in a big way.
Comment by Andrew — 7/25/2012 @ 11:09 pm
Yes, many of us agree that that is an effective response to Iranian provocations.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 7/26/2012 @ 11:28 amSomewhat of a misleading claim – since we are emerging from a little ice age, it would be expected that the last 328 months would be warmer than the “average” for the prior 2400 months. That would remain true even if we have been cooling for the last 328 months.
Same reason as above.
Joe (a00dc1) — 7/26/2012 @ 11:30 amSince the Little Ice Age (semi)officially ended at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution (1830’s?), the Earth has been undergoing a traumatic warming, so traumatic that in a few more centuries, it may (or may not) reach the average global temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period (or earlier).
The Jones’, Mann’s, and Hansen’s of the world – in an earlier time – would have been selling Snake-Oil from the drop-gate of a covered wagon.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 7/26/2012 @ 11:41 am80,000 Washington DC and much of the East Coast, was underwater, must have been the mammoth powered
narciso (ee31f1) — 7/26/2012 @ 11:43 amSUV’s
Oh, and there’s this from the Mail.online….
Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)
Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz21kw82uYs
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 7/26/2012 @ 11:44 amIgnorance insures that those who believe in nothing will believe in anything.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 7/26/2012 @ 11:45 amYou know what none of AGW are advocating for? Seriously expanding surface temperature/weather monitoring. Many temp monitoring stations are being decommissioned and there is no effort being made to increase support for maintaining them or expanding. Why? We have also seen negligent or intentional destruction of historic temp data at places like East Anglia CRU (one of the things we learned from Climategate emails).
It is almost as if they fear more data, rather than seek it …
SPQR (cbdc5c) — 7/26/2012 @ 12:17 pmOh, they’ll rely on the Sat-data from NASA, after it’s been massaged by Hansen.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 7/26/2012 @ 12:34 pmAndrew, there’s nothing to be said for leading by example if it is going to get you nowhere except a deterioration of your own situation.
I don’t know if you are playing with me or are very knowledgeable about something other than science or what. You quote an observation, one actually that conflicts with AGW proponents if my understanding is correct, and state the information “helps support” the theory you mentioned. If by “support” you mean is consistent, then fine, but there is nothing there to suggest any causal relationship.
Yes, it is true than many fields of study referred to as “science” depend on observation and analysis of natural phenomenon rather than the classic “scientific method”, but that reality seems to be invoked selectively.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/26/2012 @ 2:28 pm75, 76. I’m aware, in a very cursory fashion, of a couple of ‘predictions’, artifacts of the Hansen climate models. 1). The tropopause should average 1.2 times normal temperature, and 2., the stratosphere should be colder than expected.
I’ve looked at some of Hansen’s code over at Climate Audit, and nothing has been tossed over the years, tweaked, edited perhaps but some of the code dates into the 70’s to my eye. Fortran 77, batch files of text parsing spaghetti.
And even the notion of a global average is flawed. One of my proudest accomplishments was rebuilding a ceramic circuit board firing furnace with a controlling program in multitasking Basic and multi-screened GUI all back in 1990.
On examination of the temperature in graphical form it was a sinusoidal fractal. At every level of magnification the same sinusoidal pattern. I spent hours, days, trying to eliminate current loops that might cause erroneous feedback in that pattern.
It was a feature not a bug. In real time temperature is a random walk. So the precision to three or more decimal places in a global average is total rot. One cannot improve precision with regression.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 7/26/2012 @ 3:54 pmWhat is all this about how it it’s been in the US. What does that matter? Weather is not climate. There are cold days in Death Valley but the climate is not “cold.”
At least that’s what we get from anthropgenic climate change guys, when in snows on Al Gore in Boston in May or something. Don’t turn around and use the same argument yourselves. It’s not seemly.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 7/26/2012 @ 4:19 pmRegarding comment #72 (by AD-RtR/OS!), here’s an excerpt from Science Magazine:
It’s certainly possible that centuries of atmospheric cooling coincidentally stopped and reversed itself just when the industrial revolution started to take off. But when the coincidences start piling up, your spider sense might want to tingle a little bit. And just because a lot of AGW alarmists are dishonest jerks doesn’t necessarily mean there’s nothing to it.
Andrew (ea003d) — 7/26/2012 @ 4:21 pm“To be published”, Andrew? That’s getting to be an old trick among the AGW crowd to sneak claims.
SPQR (6c3cf5) — 7/26/2012 @ 4:25 pmAndrew has an open mind.
JD (dfe85a) — 7/26/2012 @ 4:33 pmHey, Andrew, very few of us here deny that the Earth is warming – that’s to be expected after the end of the Little Ice Age.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 7/26/2012 @ 4:36 pmThe argument is the cause of that warming.
Most of us kind of have a sense that it is just Olde Mother Earth going through one of her Hot Flashes, in conjunction with energy thrown off by that big guy Sol (how else do you explain warming on Mars?).
No one knows what the IDEAL temperature for this piece of rock is, or even what the overall average temperature is since one of our ancestors walked out of the muck in East Africa.
The most telling thing to me is that when you use one of these vaunted computer models the “Climate Scientists” throw at us, and enter data from one-hundred years ago, the model incorrectly forecasts today’s temperature/climate.
That seems to be a Fatal Flaw!
81- Isn’t that a dangerous condition?
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 7/26/2012 @ 4:37 pmIf one isn’t careful about posture, everything inside can fall out.
SPQR, this appears to be the journal article that you say is connected with sone kind of trick:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL048794.shtml
Yes, JD, I have an open mind. If AGW is a lot of hooey then I don’t want to continue to worry about it. If AD-RtR/OS! is correct that we are merely rebounding from a typical little ice age, then I guess the rate of temperature increase would be consistent with other such rebounds. I know absolutely nothing about that, so if you all have sources then please share.
Andrew (2a0f2a) — 7/26/2012 @ 4:46 pm81. Beer’s Law was devised or employed around 1800 by astronomers to explain apparent magnitude. The distance the light travelled thru the atmosphere affected the signal’s brightness in that corpuscles(they still used Newton’s understanding in that day) of the light were deleted on collision with intervening atoms in the atmosphere.
This was before Kirchoff(whose Law they rename to Stewart’s just to confuse ingenues), before Maxwell, Planck and Einstein.
We now know visible light is refracted, absorbed and instananeously re-emitted. The signal strength oscillates between 96 and 84% thru optical glass because quantum functions are ‘random’.
They treat IR as if it behaved with regard to Beer’s understanding identically to visible light. In the case of very energetic waves, gamma rays, they can pass thru the atmosphere without absorption. IR cannot. The energy it imparts to an electron encountered may not be re-emitted at that wavelength at all, but some other enegy above or below its wavelength.
To be fair, some Atmospheric Physicists might be aware of these facts, but they continue to use Beer’s as an ‘approximation’.
So they surmise that more CO2 means more captures of the IR ‘signal’. Thus retarding the escape of heat from the atmosphere.
Be glad they aren’t financial consultants.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 7/26/2012 @ 4:51 pmYes, you seem very open minded. Lol
Tell us what the ideal global average temperature is, and what steps we can do to lower same, by ourselves, by lets say 1.5-2 degrees.
JD (dfe85a) — 7/26/2012 @ 4:52 pmJD, I think 70 degrees farenheit worldwide would be ideal fir both air and water. And the best step to get there would be to go to sleep and dream. Congratulations on your triathlon, by the way.
I think I’m fairly conservative. I’ve already described in this thread my views about nuclear energy and abrtion. I don’t share Patterico’s liberal views about gay marriage, but I don’t mock and ridicule and attack him about it. Cheers. 🙂
Andrew (19c141) — 7/26/2012 @ 4:58 pmmammoth powered SUV’s
Comment by narciso — 7/26/2012 @ 11:43 am
It was the mammoth farts, narcisco. Had there been people,(?) early chemical warfare would be to have them line up, turn around, and open fire!!
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/26/2012 @ 5:14 pmComment by gary gulrud — 7/26/2012 @ 3:54 pm
Thanks for the info, gary.
Does your mother know you use such language?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/26/2012 @ 5:15 pmComment by AD-RtR/OS! — 7/26/2012 @ 11:44 am
All that link is, is a bunch of “top scientists” from all over the world about whether the sun cycle matters or not, whether ocean currents matter or not, how important CO2 is or is not, whether the pause in Global Warming for the last 15 years is important or not, and if so how or how not, but I do like this quote (among others):
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/26/2012 @ 5:33 pmPal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.
The same goes for the impact of the sun – which was highly active for much of the 20th Century.
‘Nature is about to carry out a very interesting experiment,’ he said. ‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was caused by man-made CO2, or by natural variability.’
89. Mom, bless her heart, is very accepting and agreeable sort. I must say she did not prepare me well for the norm among her gender.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 7/26/2012 @ 6:53 pmAndrew, I’m very disappointed that you have not been paying attention to the issue of AGW proponents relying upon unpublished and unpeer-reviewed papers for getting claims out. This has been a repeated issue with the IPCC published garbage.
Here’s just one example from Roger Pielke Jr. about the issue.
We have found many instances of the AGW proponents breaking their own rules on publication status for including claims in the IPCC reports.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/26/2012 @ 7:00 pmI’m sure there are a lot of scoundrels among AGW proponents. I make no excuses for them. To my mind, the basic science was discovered and laid down by Arrhenius, and his prediction has apparently come to pass. The rest of the studies seem to be kind of like navel-gazing and CV-padding and grant-writing-exercises.
Andrew (6e7e19) — 7/26/2012 @ 7:15 pmAndrew, Arrhenius did not understand the many interactions in the actual atmosphere between water vapor, aerosols, and other greenhouse gases. As for a prediction coming to pass, we are not even close to exceeding the normal range of temps for the Holocene era.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/26/2012 @ 7:20 pmThe other day I ran across a recent issue of Nature in a waiting room (was it really my car mechanic?). I was able to see only a blurb, but the issue was raised that the new and “better” computer models of global warming had wider margins of possible predictions. They were wondering how to help the public understand that the better models were less precise than the older ones, without having the public question the conclusions based on the older ones. (E.g., No, we don’t know if the Thames will freeze or be 2 feet lower because of evaporation from the heat.)
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/26/2012 @ 7:25 pmSPQR, Arrhenius was a big-picture guy who did not explore all the small details. Anyway, have we exceeded the normal range of temperature-increase-per-century for the Holocene era? I don’t know what those exact figures are, but I suspect that the answer is “yes” for both the atmosphere and the oceans. The problem I see is that by the time everyone is convinced there’s a problem, it will be too late to turn the ship around. So even though I cannot guarantee Arrhenius was generally correct, I’d like to put a nuclear plant on every corner, so to speak.
Andrew (011e9c) — 7/26/2012 @ 7:29 pmAndrew, your suspicion is wrong.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/26/2012 @ 7:33 pmSays who, SPQR? I already mentioned in this thread that there’s been a slow cooling of 0.6C over 2,000 years. And then all of a sudden we’re up by multiples of that in a single century. Is that disputed?
Andrew (6e7e19) — 7/26/2012 @ 7:36 pmAndrew, you really don’t seem to understand the basics here, despite your repeated invocation of Arrhenius. The modern geological age is not 2,000 years old.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/26/2012 @ 7:41 pmOh, and Andrew, 0.6 deg C is about the total aggregate warming over the whole 20th Century, not “multiples” of that. At least that’s the IPCC AR4 claim.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/26/2012 @ 7:43 pmThank you, Andrew.
I never questioned if you are conservative. Doesn’t matter a bit to me. I just question the open minded nonsense, because you are not on this issue. And what you suspect seems to have little relationship to reality.
The local news here covered the unprecedented ice melt, unseen in the last 30 years of studies.
On what basis do you claim 70 to be the optimal global average?
JD (7d81a2) — 7/26/2012 @ 7:44 pmThe modern geological age includes the last 2000 years, and I mentioned that period because I have the temperature change info for it. So I’ll ask again, what is the normal range of temperature-change-per-century for the Holocene?
Andrew (6e7e19) — 7/26/2012 @ 7:44 pmQuoting the summary of IPCC AR4:
So Andrew, you seem to be overestimating
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/26/2012 @ 7:45 pmAndrew, is there a reason that you want to act like an expert but can’t even get the correct magnitude of recent temperature change right?
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/26/2012 @ 7:46 pmIt was humor JD. I find 70 degree air and water ideal from a comfort standpoint. I am not suggesting we strive to make the planet 70 degrees. I also agree with Patterico’s blog post, since the info about Greenland was misreported.
If the temperature change of the past century was within the normal range of temperature-change-per-century for the Holocene, then I will worry much less about the alleged global warming (which does not seem like a closed-minded position to me).
Andrew (19c141) — 7/26/2012 @ 7:49 pmHansen, has cast a Lysenko like shadow over the entire NASA global warming endeavor, with his contractual interests in the IPCC’s stakes,
narciso (ee31f1) — 7/26/2012 @ 7:55 pmSPQR, I already said that “I’m no expert on atmospheric science.” If the word “multiples” was used incorrectly, then I apologize. I’ll ask yet again: what is the normal range during the Holocene for temperature-change-per-century? Apparently, it has increased more in the past century than the gradual decrease of the entire preceding 2000 years.
Andrew (6e7e19) — 7/26/2012 @ 7:57 pmThen why are you making false pronouncements, Andrew?
I can see I made a mistake taking you seriously.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/26/2012 @ 8:01 pmSOQR, apparently you don’t want to answer a simple question that I’ve asked several times: what is the normal range during the Holocene for temperature-change-per-century?
If you don’t want to answer, or even acknowledge the question, then I guess we should call it a night. Cheers.
Andrew (725309) — 7/26/2012 @ 8:08 pmIt seems conveniently anecdotal data undergirds most of these conclusions.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/26/climate-change-off-in-the-ozone/
narciso (ee31f1) — 7/26/2012 @ 8:10 pmRunaway, runaway.
We found out this last week that 6200 BC, the center of Europe now lays under the North Sea, swallowed suddenly by the Atlantic.
A decade or so ago we found that the center of Asia Minor in 5700 BC now lays under the Black Sea filling suddenly when the Mediterranean broke through at the Bosporus.
Three million years ago the Mediterranean basin filled suddenly when the Atlantic broke through at Gibraltar.
Sweating something less than a degree Fahrenheit rise over the last century is ludicrous.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 7/26/2012 @ 8:20 pmGary, my understanding is that the 1906-2005 temperature ruse was .74 degrees celsius. That is 1.3 degrees farenheit. So we’re talking about more than one degree farenheit. That can make a big difference,
A temperature interval of 1 °F is equal to an interval of 5⁄9 degrees Celsius. .74
1.3
what is the normal range during the Holocene for temperature-change-per-century?
Andrew (011e9c) — 7/26/2012 @ 8:30 pmGary, my understanding is that the 1906-2005 temperature rise was .74 degrees celsius. That is 1.3 degrees farenheit. So we’re talking about more than one degree farenheit. That can make a big difference, for example if you’re an ice cube at 31.5 degrees farenheit. If the oceans go up by another few degrees, they will expand, and many coastal cities will be in danger.
Do you know what is the normal range during the Holocene for temperature-change-per-century?
Andrew (011e9c) — 7/26/2012 @ 8:34 pmSorry for the premature comment-before-last. Please disregard.
Andrew (011e9c) — 7/26/2012 @ 8:37 pm112. Yeah, I don’t accept that value. At Climate Audit one finds Hansen, et al., have been progressively lowering the record with a number of ruses.
One really nifty one was traced in the code. Temperature stations surrounded by darkness at night were identified. One would suppose to adjust for heat island effect by weighting these stations more heavily, their record being more consistent over the century.
But no, the code actually lowered linearly their pre-WWII values.
Naked fraud.
I’d be happy with 0.3 degrees C. Just a SWAG developed over some years poking about.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 7/26/2012 @ 8:40 pmYikes, policy-making with bad data is very dangerous. I hope the science is not that badly corrupted. Anyway, it’s been nice chatting; it made me think and learn. Good night.
Andrew (b625dd) — 7/26/2012 @ 8:52 pmI hope the science is not that badly corrupted.
Have you followed any of the controversy regarding the data corruption?
JD (395555) — 7/26/2012 @ 9:33 pmHey, at least the thread stayed on point. That’s a major accomplishment around here. *golf clap*
elissa (75c403) — 7/26/2012 @ 9:48 pmThey don’t have that data in Andrew’s 7th-grade home-room this year.
AD-RtR/OS! (2bb434) — 7/26/2012 @ 9:50 pmOh pardon me for assuming that SPQR was providing accurate information at comment #103. I didn’t realize that he’s an ignorant lefty spy.
You people act like the mirror image of the snipe-fests at the lefty blogs. I’ll see what further pearls of kindness are added to this thread, tomorrow.
Andrew (2a0f2a) — 7/26/2012 @ 9:57 pmMichael Mann, admitted there had been no net warming in 10 years.
narciso (ee31f1) — 7/26/2012 @ 10:19 pmThat was a decidedly different tone.
JD (395555) — 7/26/2012 @ 10:44 pmThis melting is much less than it appears at first. 97% of the greenland ice sheet did not melt. It was 97% of the *surface*. The ice sheet has an average thickness of 5000 feet. It did not melt through. It takes a second reading, but I conclude that: thin parts (probably) melted away and other parts had melted water on the surface. The area affected was 97%.
Bill (d3f125) — 7/27/2012 @ 5:03 amOther sources of fraud:
Carbon is well-mixed in the atmosphere, see Mauna Loa, Keeling, Beer’s Law.
Carbon 14 production is constant, see Suess Effect.
Carbon dioxide production in concrete production, as though never used.
Ethanol as oxygenated fuel, evaporating ethanol produces formaldehyde-embalming agent.
And many more.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 7/27/2012 @ 5:55 amhttp://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/07/24/refuting-media-bias-on-global-warming/
narciso (ee31f1) — 7/27/2012 @ 11:25 amI’m somewhat familiar with the “Climategate” scandal. Here’s a summary from FactCheck.org:
The scientific community seems to be pretty confident that the average atmospheric surface temperature has risen about 1.4 degrees farenheit during the past century. That number seems pretty solid, though I certainly cannot vouch for it personally. While present temperatures seem to be well within normal range for the Holocene era, I do not know whether the rate of increase (1.4 degrees per century) is within normal range. I am also interested to find out whether that rate of increase is accelerating or not, and whether that acceleration is within normal range. I honestly don’t know the answers yet, so I cannot definitely take any position. I’m pretty sure that some global warming could be helpful, by preventing another ice age, assisting agriculture, and making temperatures more hospitable. What worries me is that we may be overdoing it.
Andrew (669dea) — 7/28/2012 @ 10:40 amI was recommended this website through my cousin. I am not certain whether this post is written by him as no one else recognise such precise approximately my problem. You’re amazing! Thank you!
Boutique Hotel South Beach l Honeymoon Penthouse South Beach l Miami Beach Penthouse l Miami Beach Vacation Rentals l Miami Luxury Hotel l Miami oceanfront Hotel l Miami Vacation Rental l Penthouse in South Beach l Penthouses in Florida l South Beach Luxu (c4c2dd) — 7/28/2012 @ 10:33 pmNew paper by Evan Jones, Watts, McIntyre, and Christy shows that the published US temperature trends overestimate warming due to the overemphasis of data from poor stations.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/29/2012 @ 6:28 pmFor all of Andrew’s claimed curiosity and open-mindedness, he shows a remarkable lack of willingness to do any research, look into the the data corruption beyond factcheck HA!, tree ring nonsense, BS heat stations, etc …
JD (318f81) — 7/29/2012 @ 7:00 pmThe Factcheck site reference pretty much confirmed my opinion of Andrew.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/29/2012 @ 7:02 pmWe investigated ourself and found ourself to be innocent!
JD (318f81) — 7/29/2012 @ 7:09 pmHere’s an example by Pielke on how AGW proponents willfully misrepresent the “science”, in this case, misrepresenting what actually appears in the IPCC papers.
Why is it that AGW proponents have such problems with honesty?
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/2/2012 @ 5:45 pm