Oh, Mann: Cuccinelli targets UVA papers in Climategate salvo
Write a letter to the editor
Show him the papers— or else.CUCCINELLI CAMPAIGN
No one can accuse Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli of shying from controversy. In his first four months in office, Cuccinelli directed public universities to remove sexual orientation from their anti-discrimination policies, attacked the Environmental Protection Agency, and filed a lawsuit challenging federal health care reform. Now, it appears, he may be preparing a legal assault on an embattled proponent of global warming theory who used to teach at the University of Virginia, Michael Mann.
In papers sent to UVA April 23, Cuccinelli’s office commands the university to produce a sweeping swath of documents relating to Mann’s receipt of nearly half a million dollars in state grant-funded climate research conducted while Mann— now director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State— was at UVA between 1999 and 2005.
If Cuccinelli succeeds in finding a smoking gun like the purloined emails that led to the international scandal dubbed Climategate, Cuccinelli could seek the return of all the research money, legal fees, and trebled damages.
“Since it’s public money, there’s enough controversy to look in to the possible manipulation of data,” says Dr. Charles Battig, president of the nonprofit Piedmont Chapter Virginia Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment, a group that doubts the underpinnings of climate change theory.
Mann is one of the lead authors of the controversial “hockey stick graph,” which contends that global temperatures have experienced a sudden and unprecedented upward spike (like the shape of a hockey stick).
UVA spokesperson Carol Wood says the school will fulfill its legal obligation, noting that the scope of the documents requested mean it could take some time. Mann had not returned a reporter’s calls at posting time, but Mann— whose research remains under investigation at Penn State— recently defended his work in a front page story in USA Today saying while there could be “minor” errors in his work there’s nothing that would amount to fraud or change his ultimate conclusions that the earth is warming as a result of human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels.
“Mike is an outstanding and extremely reputable climate scientist,” says UVA climate faculty member Howie Epstein. “And I don’t really know what they’re looking for or expecting to find.”
Among the documents Cuccinelli demands are any and all emailed or written correspondence between or relating to Mann and more than 40 climate scientists, documents supporting any of five applications for the $484,875 in grants, and evidence of any documents that no longer exist along with proof of why, when, and how they were destroyed or disappeared.
Last fall, the release of some emails by researchers caused turmoil in the climate science world and bolstered critics of the human-blaming scientific models. (Among Climategate’s embarrassing revelations was that one researcher professed an interest in punching Charlottesville-based doubting climate scientist Patrick Michaels in the nose.”)
One former UVA climate scientist now working with Michaels worries about politicizing— or, in his words, creating a “witch hunt”— what he believes should be an academic debate.
“I didn’t like it when the politicians came after Pat Michaels,” says Chip Knappenberger. “I don’t like it that the politicians are coming after Mike Mann.”
Making his comments via an online posting under an earlier version of this story, Knappenberger worries that scientists at Virginia’s public universities could become “political appointees, with whoever is in charge deciding which science is acceptable, and prosecuting the rest. Say good-bye to science in Virginia.”
The Attorney General has the right to make such demands for documents under the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, a 2002 law designed to keep government workers honest.
–last updated 3:11pm Friday, April 30
Way to go Cuccinelli! Bashing gays should NOT be illegal, the environment should NOT be protected, and global warming is a fictional invention of left-wingers who have some secret scheme to make MILLIONS off the rest of us if they can convince us it’s real! My response to ANY “command” from Cuccinelli would be to fold it five ways and shove it up your Cuccinelli!
Hey Cooch, your hair isn’t neatly parted enough and you missed a hair on your neck when you got it shaved! But your vacuous smile more than makes up for it! Can’t wait to see the Abercrombie and Fitch calendar that you and Bob McDonnell shot together to answer your critics that called you a homophobe!
The “salvo” mentioned in the headline refers to the clear warning from our Attorney General that engaging in any research that might contradict his worldview will be met by such heavy-handed tactics. Plain and simple this is an act of intimidation.
Good luck finding anything incriminating (inquiries by the National Academy and Penn State have found no wrongdoing by Mann). But then again, that’s not the point.
Is this really a priority for the state of Virginia? Using our tax dollars on state lawyers to investigate a former professor who happens to engage in climate research?
This might be an effective way for Cuccinelli to grab headlines, but it’s not good for Virginia. And in particular it’s not good for our universities where apparently the Attorney General can claim “fraud” if he disagrees with the conclusions of the research (regardless if he has any understanding of the science involved).
The Hook seems to have missed the point, quoting a local libertarian retired surgeon who is firmly behind Cuccinelli’s lawsuit, while not getting comment from the university.
Um, will you admit you were wrong if something incriminating is found? Somehow I doubt it.
It is high time that the falsifications Mann has foisted on the rest of the world as “climate science” have their day in court. Based on a very thorough review of the emails exposed in “Climategate”, it is undoubtedly in the state’s interest to find ways to recover funds that were spent so frivilously. All of you that think otherwise need to do some contrary research and at least tell us why all these dire predictions so vocally expressed by Warmers have not happened and why the climate isn’t behaving the way their climate models predict. I’d say there’s a whole lot of muck that will be uncovered by this investigation and it is high time grant chasers like Mann are exposed for what they are.
Rockyspoon,
How do you know they were spent frivolously? Research is just that, research to understand, and hopefully come to the correct conclusion. Research dollars are not handed out in the belief that every dollar spent will garner either the asnwer the researcher wants, or even society.
What we learn from failure is often as important as what we learn from success. You cannot imagine how many life saving drugs would have never been produced had the only incentive been getting the right answer for every dollar. Of course, once again, it’s private industry profiting off the tax payer.
The irony in this is Cuccinelli demosntrates that yet again, the right wing doesn’t care about the truth, or saving tax dollars, or even about frivolous lawsuits. They just care about their own agenda, and they are wasting a lot of my tax dollars on that instead of providing anything useful to the state at all.
How about prosecuting fraud, to keep consumers and businesses safe? Or enforcing laws to deal with illegal immigration?
Nope, lets get the gays and climate people because we really enjoy it when the economy is in the toilete.
What a Nazi.
You remember this from January? “Colder in Florida than Alaska and Greenland” http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1409
The gov’t can investigate the professors all it wants, it won’t change the facts. Even the pope has rehabilitated Galileo. It also won’t help the Va. economy to drive away the scientists.
We have highly toxic diesel truck stops throughout SW Virginia, some located within less than 100 feet of private residences with idling trucks producing air pollution 24/7 equivalent to 10,000-20,000 idling cars. Our rural counties have rampant poor air quality from this as well as coal fired plants. There are rising rates of asthma and cancer throughout the region. I have unsuccessfully tried to get the state government to monitor air quality but they tell me there is no budget. Yet they have a budget for this nonsense? Our government puts its citizens’ health at the bottom of its priority list.
I have to wonder how much taxpayer money they will spend to ‘attempt’ to get that half a million dollars back? But, alas, I guess it really isn’t about the money is it?
This guy has balls. He should run for President. He’s exactly the kind of guy Republicans should be putting up against Obama: fearless, strong and conservative. And liberals hate him because they know he’s such a threat to their plans to Communize our nation.
If he has nothing to hide then he should proudly release his findings and emails. In fact of he is truly proud of it he should create a website and let the world see it so that the government cannot manipulate it through a lack of context.
I wonder how much “heat” came out of the volcano that shut down Europe for a week?
Or did the cloud cover actually block the suns rays and give us a net “cooling”?
Personally I am VERY interested in the truth and unconvinced that we have heard it yet.
The debate is not over.
Is Cucch also investigating Pat Michaels for claiming to be the state climatologist for years even though he was not appointed to that position?
So Old Timer, you’re admitting Mann’s research is a “failure”? I agree. But I’ll go one better–it was falsification. If you haven’t a clue about that, then you need to do some research. Mann’s Hockey Stick curve has been called for what it is–a lie.
As far as fraud is concerned, the Cap and Tax legislation, based on some of the most questionable science out there, is far bigger fraud than anything you’ve listed. Because if Cap and Tax legislation goes through, there won’t be any ECONOMY to worry about.
But hey, I’m just speaking as a scientist myself–one of those geologists that Mann and company hate so much because they refuse to believe in the LIA and MWP since it destroys their agenda, and as geologists we keep poking it in their faces. Sorry, but man’s ability to impact the climate is about like your ability to change the tides–basically nada. Or are you saying it’s ok to ignore the biggest science scam in the history of mankind (based on the magnitude of the money and inconvenience their remediation entails) while pitching lesser remedies for the same people (including gays) that would be their target?
Basically what I’m saying is that the climate is being used to abuse everbody, including you and me. There must be push back against such horribly-misguided policy.
BTW, I vigorously refute your calling anybody a Nazi… I think that violates the terms of use on this board and you should recant and apologize to everybody. The fine print below (if you care to read it), says: “and comparing people to Hitler usually results in deletion of the comment and may get you blocked you (sic) from further commenting.”
Have a good day!
Paul, as a mining engineer (dual degree’d here), underground mines prefer diesel equipment over gas motors since the diesels are far less toxic to underground miners (gasoline motors will kill miners whereas diesel will not). Maybe that’s why your requests are being rejected–they don’t fit with the science.
Cuccinelli, it would seem, is quite the Tea Party hatchet man.
Rockyspoon, that phrase “warmers” isn’t gonna catch on. Epic fail. Thanks for playing though.
@OLDTIMER
Being wrong is never an issue in science. Einstein admitted it many times. The issue here is fraud - simple - if data was manipulated to prove he was right in his conclusions, when in fact he wasn’t, he should he held accountable..
If it is found he did research with the best intentions, but made mistakes, and was subsequently incorrect in his conclusions, he will be fine.
It’s amusing that Rockyspoon isn’t aware that his or her comments are such a joke.
But hey, I’m just speaking as a scientist myself–one of those geologists that Mann and company hate so much because they refuse to believe in the LIA and MWP since it destroys their agenda, and as geologists we keep poking it in their faces.
***
Umm, Rockyspoon, Mann and colleagues published a paper in Science on “Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly.” To say that “Mann and company” “refuse to believe in the LIA and MWP” is a falsehood and lie. Please apologize for your blatant dishonesty.
For those un-initiated, Mann is the author of the Hockey Stick world temperature graph underpinning all catastrophic AGW theories.
Senate committees have been held, corrections published and books have been written about Mann’s alleged dishonest and possibly fraudulent Hockey stick temperature graph history: The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science (Independent Minds), A.W. Montford.
In short, Mann abolished a richly documented historical event of a Medieval Warm Period in about 1200 AD when temperatures were warmer than today, by relying only on limited tree ring historical temperature proxy data to show that today’s temperatures are higher than in the last 2000 years and thus similarly rising CO2 levels can be modeled as being responsible for the warming. The proven statistical faults, hiding the decline with Jones (of failure of tree proxies after 1960), avoidance of release of data and cherry picking of tree sets are a study in what’s wrong with conviction driven research.
A short summary is here- http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/
This would be entertaining if it were not being used to trash the world’s economies and science.
I am proud to be a Virginian once again! Cuccinelli is the breath of fresh air and voice of freedom that Virginia has stood for since the beginning of this country. We have been plagued by the previous governor for the past several years, to the point that I thought VA had lost it’s way.
I have invested over 2000 hours research into the so called global warming issue and could not believe that the final solution of Cap-and-Trade was going to be pulled off. Freedom and the Truth will prevail and that makes me glad to be an American and Virginian.
The ones that have exposed this global warming cap-and-trade scheme should recieve the Nobel prize as well as the ones that prosecute the purveyors of such a sham.
“If Cuccinelli succeeds in finding a smoking gun like the purloined emails that led to the international scandal dubbed Climategate, Cuccinelli could seek the return of all the research money, legal fees, and trebled damages.”
What “smoking gun” would that be? The leaked CRU emails showed that scientists can be petty and silly in their private communications, but the investigations that followed have exonerated the participants of any actionable or even serious malfeasance. It is extremely unlikely that whatever UVA turns over to Cuccinelli (assuming the request isn’t reversed) would result in findings that could legally justify “return of all the research money, legal fees, and trebled damages”. For that you’d need gross scientific malpractice of a sort that has not appeared in any of the investigations of Michael Mann’s work and communications (the recent independent reviews in the UK, the National Research Council Report, Penn State’s internal review). There is little evidence-based reason to think that a review of UVA material will find anything different.
I expect that Cuccinelli knows this, and that he doesn’t care: the point is to create yet one more situation where Michael Mann can be portrayed as “under investigation for possible scientific misconduct”. It has little to do with scientific ethics or financial accountability, and everything to do with politics.
Fawsil fuels is like aminals: they was put here for us to USE! Annybody dont get that shuld fly back to californee
It’s heavy-handed, to be sure. But compared to the actions of the EPA in the past six months, actions based in part on Mann’s work, it’s peanuts.
The federal government needs to appoint a high-level commission to get to the bottom of the climate science abyss and determine if all the wild claims have any scientific value. I’m a skeptic. I suspect that very few of them do, but I just don’t know.
The science needs to be seriously evaluated.
The federal government needs to appoint a high-level commission to get to the bottom of the climate science abyss and determine if all the wild claims have any scientific value. I’m a skeptic. I suspect that very few of them do, but I just don’t know.
The science needs to be seriously evaluated.
***
The U.S. government already did this. The National Research Council, associated with the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, convened the expert “Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years” to evaluate many of Mann’s claims. They generally found his conclusions to be accurate, although limited data in previous centuries made it difficult to conclusively validate certain claims.
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11676
Rockyspoon: Being a “dual degreed” mining engineer does not make you a medical expert. Here’s what physicians who have carefully researched the toxicity of diesel exhaust have to say about it:
http://www.jabfm.org/cgi/content/short/21/1/55
In short, Mann abolished a richly documented historical event of a Medieval Warm Period in about 1200 AD when temperatures were warmer than today, by relying only on limited tree ring historical temperature proxy data to show that today’s temperatures are higher than in the last 2000 years and thus similarly rising CO2 levels can be modeled as being responsible for the warming. The proven statistical faults, hiding the decline with Jones (of failure of tree proxies after 1960), avoidance of release of data and cherry picking of tree sets are a study in what’s wrong with conviction driven research.
***
Your statement is inaccurate and deceptive. Here’s the conclusion of the expert committee convened by the NRC:
“The report was requested by Congress after a controversy arose last year over surface temperature reconstructions published by climatologist Michael Mann and his colleagues in the late 1990s. The researchers concluded that the warming of the Northern Hemisphere in the last decades of the 20th century was unprecedented in the past thousand years. In particular, they concluded that the 1990s were the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year. Their graph depicting a rise in temperatures at the end of a long era became known as the “hockey stick.”
The Research Council committee found the Mann team’s conclusion that warming in the last few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the last thousand years to be plausible ….”
All the proof is here mR cucinelli
http://www.blip.tv/file/3539174
Clear law violations or intent to violate law with proof
There is a good chance that Virginia’s Attorney-General Ken Cuccinelli will come up with the “smoking gun” — where other socalled investigations have only produced one whitewash after another.
We know from the leaked e-mails of Climategate that Prof.Michael Mann was involved in the international conspiracy to “hide the decline” [in global temperatures], using what chief conspirator Dr.Phil Jones refers to as “Mike [Mann]’s trick.” Now at last we may find out just how this was done.
A lot is at stake here. If the recent warming is based on faked data, then all attempts to influence the climate by controlling the emissions of the so-called “pollutant” carbon dioxide are useless –and very costly. This includes the UN Climate Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, the Waxman-Markey Cap & Trade (Tax) bill, the EPA “Endangerment Finding” based on the UN’s IPCC conclusion, and the upcoming Kerry-Lieberman-Graham bill in the US Senate.
There go all the windfarms, both onshore and offshore, the wasteful ethanol projects, and the hydrogen economy. Maybe Al Gore will cough up some of his ill-gotten $500 million, gained from scaring the public, from carbon trading, carbon footprints, and all the other scams.
So – good luck, Ken Cuccinelli. We are with you all the way.
S. Fred Singer, PhD
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
Chairman, Virginia Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment
‘A Friend’ - It’s never acceptable to bash however much you disagree with their life choices. Get some professional help.
Mann should be very worried about this move by Cuccinelli. The only thing hockey-stick shaped will be his blood pressure chart.
@a friend—-global warming is a fictional invention of left-wingers who have some secret scheme to make MILLIONS off the rest of us if they can convince us it’s real! Clearly, you doubt this.
You do realize Al Gore has invested MANY millions of dollars to position himself to become 100 times richer if Cap&Trade becomes law? Did you happen to catch today’s headline story for the names of co-patentholders (and notice how many are NOT Dems–yes, zero)(also notice the extreme rightwing publication printing this!):
Fannie Mae owns patent on residential ‘cap and trade’ exchange
[You may have to copy and paste to your browzer]
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Fannie-Mae-owns-patent-on-residential-_cap-and-trade_-exchange-91532109.html#ixzz0mVG4RyGi
When he wasn’t busy helping create a $127 billion mess for taxpayers to clean up, former Fannie Mae Chief Executive Officer Franklin Raines, two of his top underlings and select individuals in the “green” movement were inventing a patented system to trade residential carbon credits. Patent No. 6904336 was approved by the U.S. Patent and Trade Office on Nov. 7, 2006 — the day after Democrats took control of Congress. Former Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., criticized the award at the time, pointing out that it had “nothing to do with Fannie Mae’s charter, nothing to do with making mortgages more affordable.” It wasn’t about mortgages. It was about greenbacks. The patent, which Fannie Mae confirmed it still owns with Cantor Fitzgerald subsidiary CO2e.com, gives the mortgage giant a lock on the fledgling carbon trading market, thus also giving it a major financial stake in the success of cap-and-trade legislation.
Hey, it’s Fred Singer! Let me introduce you to the rest of the group (care of Wikipedia):
“Singer is skeptical of scientific findings on human-induced global warming,[17][18][19] the connection between CFCs and ozone depletion,[20] and the link between second hand smoke and lung cancer.[21][22][23] Singer has also worked with organizations with similar views, such as the Independent Institute,[24] the American Council on Science and Health,[25] Frontiers of Freedom,[26] the Marshall Institute, and the National Center for Policy Analysis,[27].”
While you’re here could you give us an update on your views that second hand smoke is not linked to lung cancer? Thanks, and tell your industry friends that we said “hi”.
The National Academy of Sciences and Penn State University “whitewashed” Mann. What can we expect from insitutions that have been protecting and encouraging this guy? Recognize they are accomplices in the fraud?
The state of climate science and public official’s ethics is at its lowest! Shame on them.
@Hi Fred,
In defense of Fred Singer, I am a medical specialist, I hate smoking and I am aware of data showing carcinogenicity of tobacco smoke, but I have never seen data establishing carcinogenicity of second hand smoke - I have always thought an ambitious task given the low level of exposure. I just accepted the claim because I hate smoke-filled restaurants. I will hardly waste time investigating claims which are to my liking, so I still haven’t bothered.
So I am glad you blogged - can you point me to the evidence linking second-hand smoke and lung cancer for my benefit.
Best regards
GEEZ SEZ
“To say that “Mann and company” “refuse to believe in the LIA and MWP” is a falsehood and lie. Please apologize for your blatant dishonesty.”
==========
The whole point of the Hockey Stick is to “smooth out” the LIA and MWP to comport with Mann’s myth that the late 20th C was the warmest period in the millennium. And he will get an apology from me when hell freezes over, or he finally admits he was wrong; considering the arrogance he displays, I’m not holding my breath.
If you care to look at all the accepted surveys, you will confirm that there is no evidence that secondary smoking is dangerous.
As to the climate science, if you read the e-mails (all of them) the scientists themselves will tell you just how corrupt they are.
Other inconvenient truths are, that sea levels are not rising, the glaciers are not melting more than is usual, the amazon rain forest is not threatened and african crops are safe. There is no global warming. There have not been any predictions (by the climate models) that can be falsified. Without a falsifiable hypothesis, there is no science.
CO2 is a plant food without which, we would not be here. At the moment, the atmostphere is CO2 defficient compared with most of the earth’s history. More CO2 will mean more food production and the world is going to need that extra food to feed the extra mouths.
Literally millions of people on this earth do not have access to clean water or electricity right now. Instead of blindly accepting the hypothetical forcasts of flawed computer models we should be tackling these problems now because they are indesputable.(no precautionary principle required)
Hey all you people out to get Mann, what do you not get?
Of course mankind impacts his/her environment, otherwise why have toiletes in the house or sewers, or even have tap water running into your house? Do you want your kids playing in the trash can? Why not?
Why do you deny climate change? We know the world has been warmer or cooler than before, it’s adapt or die! you sound like you are mad that someone is saying you might have to adapt a little bit. Is it so fricken hard to give up the massive SUV or turn down the heat 5 degrees? Mankind used wind for centuries, why not now when we can get so much more out of so much less?
There is no such thing as throw it away, it’s throw it somewhere else.
All I hear you on the right doing is being mad that someone on the left might actually have a point. As a fairly conservative point I don’t get it. Conserve means to? Conserve.
This is a wasteful political stunt that will do nothign for the Virginia taxpayer in a time when we need to be investing in our infrastructure.
Um, this comment on Fred Singer sure looks like an ad hominem attack. Why don’t you deal with the real issues, such as whether there is actually any evidence that CO2 causes global warming?
Did you know that 95% of the greenhouse effect is from water? That’s 30 times the effect of CO2. Did you know that human activity accounts for only 3% of all the CO2? We could stop burning everything and even stop breathing and it would have absolutely no discernible effect on temperature.
Look at Al Gore’s ice core chart: why didn’t he tell you that first the temperature goes up and about 800 years later the CO2 goes up? But he claims it shows that CO2 increases cause temperature increases. He has it backwards; as the oceans warm during the ice age cycle, caused by variations in the earth’s orbit, the CO2 that is dissolved in the oceans begins to come out, just like CO2 bubbling out of a warm soda.
By the way, in the past temperatures have been both warmer and colder than they are now and CO2 concentrations have been far higher. Except for the effect just noted, they just are not connected.
You can look up all this and more, such as that there is nothing unusual happening with sea level, glaciers, hurricanes, and especially temperature, as Dr. Phil Jones himself now admits (”no significant warming in 15 years” –oh, my). You will also find that the warmers have no answers for these facts and many others that have been published by Dr. Singer and other distinguished scientists. You can decide that you don’t like Dr. Singer, but you still have to deal with the evidence.
Geez:
Umm, Rockyspoon, Mann and colleagues published a paper in Science on “Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly.” To say that “Mann and company” “refuse to believe in the LIA and MWP” is a falsehood and lie. Please apologize for your blatant dishonesty.
Which blatent dishonesty? As late as 2005, Mann was claiming that the MWP and LIA were regional events limited to the North Atlantic which is why the Hockey Stick did not record either.
See http://climateaudit.org/2005/02/22/mann-and-the-hockey-stick/ and the reference to the hagiography of Mann in Scientific American:
You couldn’t get clearer than that. The Hockey Stick is the real climate change denial, front and center to the IPCC Third Assessment Review and supposedly the “scientific consensus” position.
It’s amazing the lengths that people will to defend trash like the Hockey Stick, even to the extent of rewriting history.
Peter O’ Neill,
except that a quick google search comes up right away with published studies about the risks of second hand smoke.
http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/summaries/2010/secondhand-smoke-can-damage.html
http://www.dailytech.com/New+Study+Smoking+and+Second+Hand+Smoke+Cause+Brain+Damage/article15533.htm
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/health/secondhand-smoke-linked-to-dementia-study-reveals-14185086.html
Personally, I listen to my body when it reacts badly to second hand smoke. I get stuffy, my eyes burn, and the next day I have a headache. That means my body has a problem with it, which means it isn’t good for me and is harming it in some way.
I hope that your defense against climate change theories are a bit better thought out.
Question: What are the chances an infinitesimal (.04%) trace gas (CO2), essential to photosynthesis and therefore life on this planet, is responsible for runaway Global Warming?
Answer: Infinitesimal
The IPCC now agrees. See the IPCC Technical Report section entitled Global Warming Potential (GWP). And the GWP for CO2? Just 1, (one), unity, the lowest of all green house gases (GHG). What’s more, trace gases which include GHG constitute less than 1% of the atmosphere. Of that 1%, water vapor, the most powerful GHG, makes ups 40% of the total. Carbon dioxide is 1/10th of that amount, an insignificant .04%. If carbon dioxide levels were cut in half to 200PPM, all plant growth would stop according to agricultural scientists. It’s no accident that commercial green house owner/operators invest heavily in CO2 generators to increase production, revenues and profits. Prof. Michael Mann’s Bristle cone tree proxy data (Hockey stick) proves nothing has done more to GREEN (verb) the planet over the past few decades than moderate sun-driven warming (see solar inertial motion) together with elevated levels of CO2, regardless of the source. None of these facts have been reported in the national media. Why?
Conclusion: The Republican Party has at least two members with cojones. One of them is Cuccinelli.
John J, it takes an infinitesimal amount of cyanide to kill a human being but the human is dead just the same.
Conclusion: the GOP is interested in sucking down tax dollars for their own agenda when it suits them, to heck with how Americans are hurting.
Caesonia - Not great logic there. It is scientific fact that cyanide kills. It is pure conjecture (and shonky/fraudulent ’science’) that suggests increased anthropogenic Co2 will have any impact on our lives. But let’s create a global taxation mechanism … just in case huh?
About par for the course. Sceptics provide lists of evidence and facts that are not disputed by the warmers. Warmers provide ad hominum attacks.
Where is the evidence that the world has warmed since 1995? Where is the evidence that the Arctic is melting away? Where is the evidence that hurricanes and tornadoes are increasing? Where is the evidence that CO2 causes any appreciable increase in global temperature?
Wow! reading these comments, you’d think there’s something WRONG with wanting to review the work of a scientist who took tons of tax payer dollars and who’s claims are leading to legislation that will crush our economy!
oh! I’m sorry… I forgot that we’re not supposed to SEE the raw data that was used to create warmist conclusions! that’s why it keeps getting “lost” everytime somebody files a FOI request.
Cuccinelli is actually just doing his job! Finally a politician who has some backbone!!
The left long ago decided that the ends justify the means. (Read Rules for Radicals.) The lies from the left should be exposed. For far too long the left had total control of the media. Through such control, the left was able to shape, mold, and influence public opinion, policies, and laws, regardless of whether such policies and laws were appropriate, fair, justified, or necessary. The curtain of deceit is being removed. The taking of public money for research is a very serious matter. Dr. Mann should welcome the review by the AG. If Dr. Mann has nothing to hide, then let the review begin. Any scientist worth his salt should welcome the opportunity to defend his positions. No honest scientist would ever practice deceit.
Our AG is a disgrace and embarrassment.
I wonder why the warming alarmists have never been able to explain why the increase in temperature precedes the increase in man made carbon dioxide. If in fact increase in man made CO2 was the sole cause of increase in temperature, one would expect the increase in man made CO2 to precede the increases in temperature. However, this is not what occurs in nature.
krazykiwi- I was using the exact same logic as John A unhappy with man made climate change to make a point; the amount of a product and it’s effectiveness in causing change. If you think that logic wanting why are you not criticl of John A? Oh, that’s right, he is speaking to the side of the argument you happen to endorse. thus, you make yourself and John as weak in the discussion as the very people you criticize. Perhaps Cucc should go after Fred Singer as well, seeing as you all can’t do any better in your logic, and that must mean fraud.
Myron - A yes, the ‘liberal’ media is after you. Poor helpless victimized conservatvies. you arent happy if you aren’t being victims and blaming someone else for your incompetent policies in agenda. Even when you have the White House, Congress, and the senate, you are still being controlled by he ‘liberal’ media and can’t get anything done. You can of course run us from the Black into debt and bust the budget and turn Wall Street into even a more fraudulant pile of deciept, but that’s someone else’s fault to. ‘They’ made you alter scientific data yourselves when it was convenient.
Cucc has nothign to say about that of course. It’s the ‘liberal’ media that made Conservatvies who have had there way for years break it all.
You can’t be victims and call the shots guys.
Way to go Cucc, it is about time somebody held Mann’s feet to the fire for scamming the public out of 1/2 mill just to further his maniptlated climate models to scare funding out of the public. He and Al Gore should both be jailed and we should cut off all funding for the IPCC.
Cut funding for the IPCC and UVA
Rockyspoon,
No, I wasn’t admitting that at all. I always find it interesting that those on the extreme right want to rewrite what someone else said so they can set up their own straw man argument. The extreme left does it but not so often, because a liberal is the only one who can find an argument to defeat his own.
All I said was that doing research and publishing findings that might be contravertial does not by any means constitute fraud. In what time I have spent reading the arguments I have yet to find the change deniers any more accurate or reliable than the change claimers when it comes to formulating an argument.
The Bush administration was guilty of interfering with scineitific data it did not like on several occasions, and for political reasons forced it to be removed from government releases. Yet all of you were silent on that, and all the right wing Ag weren’t doing anything about that, including the one in this state, our current governor. Why not?
Oh, well, it wasn’t the ‘libs’ doing it, so it’s a frivolous issue.
Rob,
I agree with your point, but I don’t see fraud going on here, even after reading the emails. I saw appropriate scientific commentary, and a lot of scientific ego, but fraud? No. Not yet. It could happen as more comes to light, but thus far, I see a piddling contest between scientists and political ideologies trying to play it out to their advantage.
John A,
Way to go, using yourself to reference yourself on a blog that is dedicated to those who have no other purpose in life than to get angry at some people with some different political leanings.
You want to pretend you have scholarly value? You better point to something a lot colder and better than that.
Folks,
This has to be a rational discussion and I don’t see it here, and I don;t think our AG is capable of it either. So far, his agenda has been lock stock barrel about the ‘right’ agenda. There are better things to focus on that trying to remove homosexuals from discrimination protection. Your sexual orientation IS you business, and if that’s a big priority for Cucc, he is not interested in the welfare of Virginia.
woops, typo. That’s controversial…
Sorry, but I can’t agree with Dr. Battig or Dr. Singer on this one.
Cuccinelli is taking things too far. Way too far. This has all the trappings of a witch hunt, plain and simple.
It does not strike me as being much of a stretch that it is not far along this path before scientists at Virginia’s public universities become political appointees, with whoever is in charge deciding which science is acceptable, and prosecuting the rest. Say good-bye to science in Virginia. Who is going to sign up to do it?
Scientific research is inherently a decision making process. Politicians should not be in charge of decreeing how those decisions must be made and prosecuting transgressions. Instead, the appropriateness of the decisions get worked out in the scientific arena.
I didn’t like it when the politicians came after Pat Michaels, I don’t like it that the politicians are coming after Mike Mann.
Identifying and investigating specific misdeeds is one thing, but, in this case, Cuccinelli is casting his net far too widely. Very likely we will not be better what he ultimately catches.
-Chip Knappenberger
The left long ago decided that the ends justify the means. (Read Rules for Radicals.) The lies from the left should be exposed. For far too long the left had total control of the media. Through such control, the left was able to shape, mold, and influence public opinion, policies, and laws, regardless of whether such policies and laws were appropriate, fair, justified, or necessary.
***
Umm, the most obvious recent example of what you’re describing was done by neo-cons to justify the war against Iraq, based on dubious claims about weapons of mass destruction.
Hopefully Mann will be the first out of a long list of climate crooks to go to jail. It not only that these people have stolen billions from the taxpayers, but its also the fact that they were trying to steal our future as well. They sent little kids to bed crying each night for fear the climate catastrophe they fraudulently embedded in their minds, all for greed and power. Mann and all of those deeply involved in this climate fraud deserve to spend the rest of their natural lives behind bars.
It is very unclear why this is controversial.
It is public money after all - why on earth would any supporting information not be provided?
OK, if this is how scientists are treated in Virginia, I’m really not itne4rested in having one more dollar of US tax money go to Virginia, especially since my state (California) sends more to the Federal government than it gets back, unlike Virginia
IF Virgina doesn’t like scientists, I suggest that the Federal government *zero* funds for all science research in Virginia, and send the money to states who don’t waste money (twice) by harassing scientists. Cuccinelli both spends your money, and then UVA will spend your money dealing with this.
IF VA wants to drive out science, that’s VA’s choice, but some of the rest of the country sends a lot of money VA’s way, and maybe it’s time for that to stop.
Will the taxpayers of Virginia be able to get Mr. Cucinelli to repay the costs of this effort if nothing is found?
What’s the big deal? If Mann has done nothing wrong or fraudulent then there will be no evidence to find against him.
It’s that simple folks. No-one is above the law - including Mr Michael Mann.
andrea,
silly comment. Do DAs have to pay for court expenses out of their own pocket? Of course not, so why would you think it’s reasonable to reverse charges on failed DA cases?
Now, unlike several of his other policies and actions, this makes sense. There have been serious, very well supported accusations of fraud and data manipulation against Mann. I consider anyone who does not conduct an investigation or who conducts a whitewash scheme (I am looking at you, England) deficient in their post.
To Caesonia post on 4-29-10: You should read the comments on the articles in the three links you provided. For example, in the second link, a cancer researcher (tmouse on 6-29-09), said the same thing O’Neill said - the evidence for second hand smoke damage is sketchy at best. Nicotein has been shown to reduce the effects of Dementia not increase them! I have never smoked and I don’t like to be around smoke but the reasearch surely has been fudged on second hand smoke.
silly comment. Do DAs have to pay for court expenses out of their own pocket? Of course not, so why would you think it’s reasonable to reverse charges on failed DA cases?
***
Silly comment. First, Cucc is the attorney general. Second, Cucc is investigating Mann to see if he misappropriated government funds by conducting research in a fraudulent manner. In so doing, Cucc is misappropriating government funds by conducting an unnecessary investigation.
@Old Timer
I can’t help but notice that even thinking Liberals remarks such as Old Timer still don’t get it. Saying this issue is all about “piddling” arguments between Scientists, Politicians etc shows a breathtaking lack of Economic fundamentals.
AGW (now Climate Change) has been foisted on the public by a cabal of self-serving bureaucrats and opportunists in order to enrich themselves in terms of status, grant money, Cap and Trade schemes, REC’s and other government subsidies for “clean energy” …the list goes on. These various schemes have cost taxpayers, particularly in Europe, 100’s of BILLIONS!! in dollar equivalents.
As for the “insurance” or “just in case” argument: these resources being thrown at AGW are not unlimited. Shouldn’t we be spending the money on PROVEN science? Like clean water shortages in Emerging Countries?
Only a Lib could call this “piddling”. Sorry Old Timer, I would mention the others by name but they seem to be some kind of shills for someone’s agenda.
JLK
What’s the big deal? If Mann has done nothing wrong or fraudulent then there will be no evidence to find against him.
***
Science, even good science, is messing. There are inevitably minor errors and omissions in good work. Good researchers also often disdain people whose work they view as inferior and make sarcastic comments about them in emails. Talented researchers don’t like wasting time responding to phishing expeditions from undereducated attorneys-general (and yes, talented researchers view a U.Va. undergrad engineering degree and GMU law degree as undereducated) looking to score points with their political base by investigating a controversial issue. Any minor errors or indiscreet comments will be loudly trumpeted by the types in these comments who have misconstrued the recent “Climategate” email controversy.
messy
JLK -
There’s a difference between scientific arguments and their policy implications. I assume that you understand the difference between the Weberian notion of science as a vocation and politics as a vocation? The issue in question is generally Mann’s scientific research, not what the public policy implications have been or should be.
To oversimplify, the “scientific method” calls for the researcher to make freely the following freely availible for scrutiny:
1)What he started with
2)What was done with it
3)The results
4)The conclusions.
Mann and the others claiming AGW publish #4. Sometimes they publish what they claim is #3. They try to hide #1 and #2. The little bit of #1 and #2 invesitgators have been able to pry loose contains errors. The combination of secretiveness and errors gives a strong appearence of impropriety, or fraud.
Mann has produced NO “science”. What he has produced is, by definition NOT science until he releases everything he was supposed to have released years ago.
Well, if anyone is actually interested in serious history, and what Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger actually do for a living (like, do people know about the Western Fuels Association, and the funders of CATO? I.e., the Koch brotheres? (oil&gas, 2nd biggest private company in US)
See: http://www.desmogblog.com/crescendo-climategate-cacophony
As far as I’m concened, Cuccinelli is Virgina is putting up a big sign:
“No real scientists needed in Virginia”
That’s OK, scientists, especially the good ones, can find homes elsewhere, and then VA can zero its science budgets as well.
The facts are that every qualified panel that’s looked at Mann’s work has cleared him. And if you think to quote he 2006 Wegman Report, I wouldn’t.
Dr. Mashey,
Thanks for the coverage, but you have greatly underestimated my contributions.
-Chip
To oversimplify, the “scientific method” calls for the researcher to make freely the following freely availible for scrutiny:
1)What he started with
2)What was done with it
3)The results
4)The conclusions.
Mann and the others claiming AGW publish #4. Sometimes they publish what they claim is #3.
***
Mann has published over 80 peer-review journal articles. Are you really suggesting that he only sometimes publishes what he “claims” are results?
Finally a real inquiry. The Penn State inquiry only interviewed Mann and talked to no one else. Shouldn’t this type of inquiry be thorough and not the white washes we have seen to date.
Entertaining how the first response to Fred Singer’s comment was a regurgitation of Wikipedia - aka “Wikipropaganda”, as detailed in a marvelous July ‘08 article by Lawrence Soloman in National Review Online: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjU1ZDBhOGExOWRlNzc5ZDcwOTUxZWM3MWU2Mjc5MGE=
Has the mainstream media told us about those underlying problems of Wikipedia, or even bothered to confirm the myriad accusations against Dr Singer and other skeptic scientists using irrefutable proof of big oil / coal paying them all to fabricate papers contradicting IPCC reports? Hmmm, guess not….
@Old Timer
“How do you know they were spent frivolously? Research is just that, research to understand, and hopefully come to the correct conclusion. Research dollars are not handed out in the belief that every dollar spent will garner either the asnwer the researcher wants, or even society.”
There’s nothing wrong with genuine research even if the results arrived at are meaningless or useless. We can all agree on that. However, where I disagree with you is that after taking tax payers money for this research, we have good reason to believe Mann misrepresented results and even manufactured them, which probably cost us and the rest of the world millions if not billions in policy changes worldwide. Al Gore’s movie made him tens of millions and it was based on fiction! The UK courts have banned AL’s movie to be shown in schools there because the court stated that the movie is factually flawed. This coming from a country that fully supported the theory of global warming until the East Anglia fiasco.
Stop making this into a political issue. It’s not, it’s a fraud issue, probably worse than had this disgraced professor spent it on fine wine and restaurants. At least the AG has sufficient cause to investigate.
> This has all the trappings of a witch hunt, plain and simple.
What do these specific trappings to consider them a witch hunt, but not the others?
***
Is it true that Virginia receives more from the federal than it gives back? I wonder then if Cuccinelli will it live up to his ideals and return the extra money back.
Rockyspoon you wrote: “I think that violates the terms of use on this board and you should recant and apologize to everybody. The fine print below (if you care to read it), says: “and comparing people to Hitler usually results in deletion of the comment and may get you blocked you (sic) from further commenting.”
What you didn’t spot was that the fine print also says:
“Ditto for posting unverified and/or potentially libelous allegations”
But in the same post you accused Mann of fraud, which is potentially libelous. By your own standards you should now recant and apologize to everybody.
I thought I would provide some answers to questions that some skeptical commenters have asked above. In case they or others are interested in the answers. You can find out more info on these questions by googling, there’s a lot of info out there.
Peter Oneil poses several arguments:
“sea levels are not rising”
The University of Colorado has a webpage showing recently up to date sea level graphs. These graphs show that sea level is rising.
“glaciers are not melting more than is usual”
The World Glacier Monitoring Service has a website that provides annual reports on worldwide glacier trends. The preliminary report for 2007/2008 shows glaciers still melting. The speed of decline has increased over the past few decades.
“There is no global warming”
The Earth has warmed in recent decades. Satellite, land station and ocean measurements confirm this.
“There have not been any predictions (by the climate models) that can be falsified”
How about global warming - I would argue that is a prediction that’s falsifiable and hasn’t been falsified!
Donna in DC also raises a few arguments:
“Did you know that 95% of the greenhouse effect is from water?”
It’s not as high as 95%. But yes climate scientists are aware of the figure and their thoughts about manmade global warming take that into account.
“Did you know that human activity accounts for only 3% of all the CO2?”
It accounts for only 3% of the co2 *emitted* per year. That’s accumulated over time. About a quarter of the co2 in the atmosphere today is due to human emissions over the past century.
“By the way, in the past temperatures have been both warmer and colder than they are now and CO2 concentrations have been far higher”
This is true and details are mentioned in the IPCC reports. Scientists take these things into account with their thoughts about manmade global warming.
“no significant warming in 15 years”
Warming in the past 15 years is significant at just below the 95% confidence level.
John A. Jauregui wonders:
“What are the chances an infinitesimal (.04%) trace gas (CO2), essential to photosynthesis and therefore life on this planet, is responsible for runaway Global Warming?”
Don’t be tricked by the small percentage, .04% of the atmosphere is a lot of molecules in the way of radiation trying to enter or leave the planet. For example ozone is an infinitesimal trace gas. It is even more scarce than co2 in the atmosphere, yet without the sheild ozone forms, all land life would perish from UV rays.
Buster Went asks:
“I wonder why the warming alarmists have never been able to explain why the increase in temperature precedes the increase in man made carbon dioxide.”
The temperature rise starts off the co2 rise and the co2 rise then causes additional warming. Google for the words “co2 lag temperature” for more detail.
“GoTeamGo” makes the point that Mann has published over “80 peer reviewed articles”. He seems to think that this somehow validates Mann’s position.
However, he neglects to note one of the most significant items to come out of the “ClimateGate” Emails.
That is, the concerted effort by the warmis clique to ensure that only papers favourable to AGW would be published, and papers critical of AGW would be trashed during “peer review” by warmist cronies.
This was/is a corruption of both the peer review process and the free exchange of scientific viewpoints.
So, under these circumstances, Manns publications are really worth less than the paper they were printed on, and can be safely disregarded.
If at first you don’t succeed,
ask for a Republican appointed committee.
And when that doesn’t succeed,
ask for a University review.
And when that doesn’t succeed,
ask for a Republican-led criminal investigation.
And when that doesn’t succeed …?
Despicable cowards, who,
unable to win a scientific argument face-to-face,
call in their political dogs to attack from the rear.
Scott-
And you would do best to read exactly what I was responding to and what the articles say, before looking into the uncited comments to find what you want to address instead.
Oneil said this:
“If you care to look at all the accepted surveys, you will confirm that there is no evidence that secondary smoking is dangerous.”
He said nothing about cancer specifically. I demonstrated very quickly that not not only is his statement patently untrue about no material suggesting second hand smoke is problematic, bit also that such material is readily available from scientific sources.
If this is the best he and other anti climate change people can do, why should I believe anything else they say? or you, if you can’t read what is even being addressed?
So scientist in Virginia, perhaps you can give specific references from those emails, if you ahve actually read them. I have seen a few posted - links from this The Hook, and I didn’t see anything particularly incriminating.
It’s tryue that 80 peer reviewed articles doesn’t make Mann correct, but it does mean that hs articles routinely have to meet certain levels of scrutiny regarding appropriate research methodology. The world of economics isn’t much different, and what I have read doesn’t throw any flags for me.
Maybe you can be the good scientist and actually cite particular instances with references to similar research that isn;t just one of your articles or reviewes from ‘ your’ peers. Let’s see some work from independent peers.
Hmm? Can ya? Will ya?
Ahhhh, the global warming “skeptics” have descended.
Where to take them down first….
Someone said that scientists don’t publish most of their data. This is a load of twaddle.
Original data (supposedly not published):
Most of the world’s raw historical climate data is available to the general public. I’ve done some dabbling in it myself. Just do a google search for GHCN. Or USHCN for just the USA. Fascinating stuff.
What was done with the data (also allegedly not published):
This, not conclusions or results, is the main focus of most research papers. It does not include every line of code ever written by the scientists (or any code for that matter). Reproducing the same result with the same code is a given! However, it provides the methods used such that someone else in the field can independently reproduce the results.
“Climategate” emails re: peer review process
It should be noted that the supposed to conspiracy to keep certain papers from being published failed, as said papers were published anyway. Furthmore, most scientists don’t object to contrarian papers being published, so long as they are doing good science. The problem is that a small industry has developed dedicated to bringing back arguments that were researched and refuted decades ago, and climate scientists are tired of debunking the same arguments year after year. (e.g. the sun did it. Really? If so, why are temperatures rising when the total solar flux has been on the decrease?)
The debate at this point should not be about whether or not human produced carbon emissions are causing global warming, the debate should be about whether it is more cost effective to mitigate the effects when they come, or to prevent them from happening in the first place. Sadly, the real debate has been ignored and all that remains is character assassination and zombie arguments…
@John Mashey –a link to the warmanista goon-squad over at the desmogblog? About as useless as teats on a bull. No?
As previously noted, the peer-review process has been hijacked.
Sea levels rising? See this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html
There seems to be some confusion over the ‘hide the decline’ thing and the hockey-stick shaped graph. What happened was cherry-picking of “tree ring” data to smooth over previous (and greater) fluctuations, then the complete removal of RECENT tree ring data (which showed a decline) and replacing it with cherry-picked surface station temps (which showed an increase).
If tree ring data is not reliable now, when compared to instruments, then it’s always just plain unreliable, ie worthless for science.
The invalid positioning and cherry picking of surface stations is well documented. Try the Watt’s Up With That site for details.
The concept that CO2 causes a rise, which then releases more CO2 which causes a greater rise, would be a ‘runaway’ scenario in which the Earth would become hotter and hotter. Meaning we would not be here today. Evidently the Earth’s feedback mechanisms are quite able to cope - and CO2 levels have previously been much higher than today.
On top of all that, who’s to say warmer isn’t better?
For most of this planet’s history it has been an ice ball, with relatively short warm periods. We’re lucky enough to be in a warm spot.
Trust me, the alternative of an ice age is much, much, worse than any warming we may experience.
Oh, and I should add that satellite data, yummy as it may be, is meaningless compared to the big picture. We’ve only had eyes in the sky for what, 50 years? 70?
So when NASA et all claim “greatest ever” and so on, they are referring merely to the greatest ever in the last few decades.
Even WITH satellites, NASA managed to somehow lose or not notice a massive increase in ice, the size of california. They were so busy crying wolf about a “loss” of californoa sized ice they didn’t notice!
Oh, seems we’ve had satellites for only 30 years. Pft!
“The problem arose from a malfunction of the satellite sensor we use for our daily sea ice products. Upon further investigation, we discovered that starting around early January, an error known as sensor drift caused a slowly growing underestimation of Arctic sea ice extent. The underestimation reached approximately 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles) by mid-February.”
Not to mention of course, that certain sea passages were well-documented as used, long ago, in areas that are today solid ice…
Basically we can ignore satellite data as being too recent for long term understanding. Plus it now turns out to be less than accurate anyway.
By the way, in the Climategate emails, they mention that the sea temps do not show the same cherry-picked increase in land temps, and they wonder how to over-come that.
Did they ever figure it out?
“Your statement is inaccurate and deceptive. Here’s the conclusion of the expert committee convened by the NRC:
[...]
Speaking of inaccurate and deceptive …
“The Research Council committee found the Mann team’s conclusion that warming in the last few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the last thousand years to be plausible”
Plausible is as plausible does, I suppose. That paragraph continues:
“but it had less confidence that the warming was unprecedented prior to 1600; fewer proxies — in fewer locations — provide temperatures for periods before then. Because of larger uncertainties in temperature reconstructions for decades and individual years, and because not all proxies record temperatures for such short timescales, even less confidence can be placed in the Mann team’s conclusions about the 1990s, and 1998 in particular.”
IOW, the NRC Committee’s confidence in the Mann team’s findings started with “plausible” - and went downhill from there. It is particularly noteworthy that their evaluation of Mann’s *conclusions* rated the lowest level of confidence.
“For most of this planet’s history it has been an ice ball, with relatively short warm periods. We’re lucky enough to be in a warm spot.”
You’re wrong. In the first three quarters of the Earth’s history, only one major glaciation has been found in the geological record.
Since you’re bringing up the planet’s history, don’t forget that for at the least the first 3 billion years of the earth’s history, there was little to no oxygen in the atmosphere. Your statement really should be something like this - “For most of this planet’s history conditions have been completely inhospitable to human life. We’re lucky enough to be alive.”
When people say things like “the Earth’s feedback mechanisms are quite able to cope,” they forget that while the Earth may be able to cope, we may not be able to cope with the changes brought by those “feedback mechanisms”.
Climategate was forecast…
“What is the current scientific consensus on the conclusions reached by Drs. Mann, Bradley and Hughes? [Referring to the hockey stick propagated in UN IPCC 2001 by Michael Mann and debunked by McIntyre and McKitrick in 2003.]
Ans: Based on the literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on MBH98/99. As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.”
AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE ‘HOCKEY STICK’ GLOBAL CLIMATE RECONSTRUCTION, also known as The Wegman report was authored by Edward J. Wegman, George Mason University, David W. Scott, Rice University, and Yasmin H. Said, The Johns Hopkins University with the contributions of John T. Rigsby, III, Naval Surface Warfare Center, and Denise M. Reeves, MITRE Corporation.
The Bush admin had a gag order on the NOAA web site re: climate change. Ummm “politicized” maybe?
“The Attorney General has the right to make such demands for documents under the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, a 2002 law designed to keep government workers honest”
Funny how politicians never pass a law to keep themselves honest.
Filing lawsuits against professors whose research he disagrees with is not the only thing on Cuccinelli’s plate right now.
He has redesigned the Virginia state seal to cover over the bare breast of the Roman goddess Virtus. No joke. Here’s the link from today’s paper:
http://hamptonroads.com/2010/04/cuccinelli-opts-more-modest-state-seal
Amateur Hour is officially in session in Richmond. Way to make us proud!
it is a lie to say that Mann was trying to hide a decline in temperatures. The line that was ended on the graph was tree ring data that obviously wasn’t accurate.
They had this line and a line of thermometer temperatures. The thermometer temperatures and the tree ring temperatures had tracked along pretty much together. In recent years, the tree ring data diverged for reasons that are still not clear.
The scientists knew the tree ring data were wrong because they had the thermometer temperatures.
They decided the tree rings were wrong because by that time they had thermometer readings.
The Russian Gazprom political operatives may be involved in Climategage along with Western companies.
I notice climate deniers quoting the Russian media, but they belong to the Russian Gazprom monopoly, which runs Russia.
The KGB went into Gazprom and President Medvedev is the former Chairman of the Board.
Global Warming denialism is probably the latest Russian propaganda–like the lies about AIDS.
Virginia’s Attorney General is opportunistic scum, so are Marc Morano, the Russian economist and former Gazprom official Andrei Illarionov, Andrei Kapitsa, and Senator Inhofe.
The NETCU are investigating the theft. The British weather office–the MET–is part of the British Army, with all the resources that implies.
I voted Republican for over 40 years, but I don’t vote for Republicans who collaborate with Gazprom operatives, the United Russia Party, and the Russian State Security.
When Pravda and Republicans are on the same page, I vote Democrat. Climategate has opened my eyes to what scum some Republicans are.
Actually, to add on to Snapple’s excellent commentary, regarding “hiding the decline,” there were actually multiple different lines of tree ring inferred temperature records. Only one particular type of tree record showed divergence from the thermometer trend, and this was the one that was corrected. Several other types of trees seem to track fairly well with the instrumental record. Furthermore, rather than hiding the one declining tree ring data, anyone that uses the method of switching from tree ring to instrumental data specifically notes that they are doing so and why.
Adam, NASA has two global temperature anomaly records. The first, GissTEMP is based on measurements from ground surface stations, and goes back to 1880. It matches other surface temperature records very closely, including the one from NOAA and the Hadley Center.
The second is the satellite based Microwave Sounder Unit (MSU) record which goes back, as you point out to ~1980. However, if you compare the two satellite records and the three major surface temperature anomaly records, they all agree very well with each other.
As a matter of fact, disagreements among the various records in the past have lead to serious work which has dug out errors. Correcting the errors has brought the records into agreement
“The invalid positioning and cherry picking of surface stations is well documented. Try the Watt’s Up With That site for details.”
If that was so it should be easy to demonstrate by showing which different set of surface stations show a different result. Hasn’t been done. In fact quite the contrary - analyses with different sets of stations to date have found the same result and therefore reinforce it. As such the accusation of cherrypicking is without evidence.
“The concept that CO2 causes a rise, which then releases more CO2 which causes a greater rise, would be a ‘runaway’ scenario in which the Earth would become hotter and hotter.”
The temperature rise caused by co2 isn’t enough to raise co2 by the same amount again, so the process converges on a total amount of extra warming, it doesn’t runaway to infinite warming.
“Oh, and I should add that satellite data, yummy as it may be, is meaningless compared to the big picture.”
The satellite data shows warming in the last 30 years. So do surface stations. When skeptics claim that warming in the past 30 years as shown by surface stations is caused by cherrypicking stations, or UHI, or positioning of stations, they are conveniently ignoring that satellites are not affected by any of those things yet they show warming too.
Skeptics try to imply that recent warming may be based on faked data. That’s nonsense.
Just what we need. Another wingnut politician with a fishing pole. It’s good to know that our tax dollars are being spent to advance a personal agenda.
I’m not implying anything, I’m stating that they have cherry-picked the data. If you wish to call that ‘faking’, feel free.
From around 5,000 suface temperature recording stations across the world we now have less than 1000. None of them are in remote or cold areas, virtually all of them in the US break the rules of location (such as being next to air conditioning outlets etc). The same dodgy locating is found in Australia, Canada and Russia. Probably elsewhere too.
C, you say “it doesn’t runaway to indefinite warming”. Could you provide any proof it leads to ANY warming? Currently it appears a somewhat “god of the gaps” arguement. We can’t figure out why temps are as they are, so we blame CO2. There is no definitive proof CO2 does much of anything. Yes, it weathers rocks but no actual proof of warming.
One point that really should be hammered home more, is that the computer models fail to account for clouds.
Unbelievable but true.
When clouds are high they reflect heat back, when low they trap heat. When somewhat wispy and in-between, the models return results along the lines of “fudge factor x240 divided by how many beers we had before lunch”.
We simply cannot state with any certainty what the effects of CO2 are, in addition we cannot account for the natural variations or how the Earth would, will or does react to man’s current output of CO2.
In short, the “science” is young, raw, political and frequently prone to errors, manipulation, sins of omission and blockading of alternative approaches. It’s a farce.
You say the surface temps match the satellite data, skeptic sites say it does not, the climategate emails stated it does not and it was a “travesty” they could not explain the LACK of ocean warming.
So who do I believe? You, because you simply state in a comment that they do match? That’s not what I hear. Heck, they even had some alarmist claim the lack of ocean warming was because it was “hiding” and would return to wreak vengeance (including fire and brimstone one presumes) at some indeterminate future date.
Be scared, very scared.
*sigh*
You know, if you really want to campaign on a global scale for global change, how’s about campaigning for LESS government interference, destruction, war, taxation and general strangling?
You know, something useful, that would actually benefit mankind?
Science be damned. This is personal: Al Gore dared to get more votes than double u and he must never be forgiven. This is worth sacrificing the planet for. Trust me.
“C, you say “it doesn’t runaway to indefinite warming”. Could you provide any proof it leads to ANY warming?”
co2 has been proven to be a greenhouse gas in laboratory studies and measurements in the atmosphere confirm it’s absorbing energy that would otherwise be radiated into space.
“You say the surface temps match the satellite data, skeptic sites say it does not…So who do I believe? You, because you simply state in a comment that they do match?”
It’s not a matter of opinion. It can be objectively determined very easily. If you want to know who is wrong, go and compare the UAH lower tropospheric satellite record with the HadCRUT3 surface temperature record over the past 30 years. You’ll find the skeptic sites are wrong, curiously wrong given it is quite easy to find out. Perhaps it’s because they lie. They lie because satellite agreement makes it harder for them to pretend the surface record is wrong and harder to pretend that recent warming hasn’t occured.
It’s important to note that there was no “smoking gun” found in the “climatgate” emails. Investigations have shown that there was no wrongdoing and the research results stand.
Science should always be open to scrutiny–the oversimplified media coverage of some issues (like ‘vaccines and autism’) and the politics (OMG, we’re destroying the earth!) helped cause this problem of credibility. It’s not like the AG alone decided to take this on with no precedent.
We know the earth’s climate cycles over hundreds and thousands and millions of years. We really need an unbiased look at the evidence that supports the primary reasons for this. Just because ice is melting, doesn’t mean that humans are primarily responsible.
It’s a truth in academia that you will get funding when you have a ‘trendy’ project; and a caveat that your research will likely support your funder.
And, of course, as the recent earthquakes prove, Mother Nature always gets the last word and can do more damage in 3 seconds than humans can do in 30,000 years.
Adam: “There is no definitive proof CO2 does much of anything.”
Nope. Tyndall discovered in a lab back in 1859 that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That means it absorbs and emits infrared radiation. So looking at Earth’s atmosphere from above, more CO2 means more infrared radiation coming from the cooler upper levels than below, thus causing the atmosphere to warm in order that energy is conserved.
Adam: “The computer models fail to account for clouds.”
Nope. Today’s climate models incorporate the entire atmospheric water cycle, from evaporation and transpiration, to three-dimensional transport, to the full microphysics of clouds, to precipitation back to Earth, along with the solar and infrared radiative interactions with water in all its forms. Climate models (as well as numerical weather prediction models) typically devote more than half of their compute resources on modeling water.
It’s a goodthing that no wingnut/repcon practices any science for which they might be held to account. You may be assured that were the circumstances reversed and this was a Democrat AG investigating the ’science ” of some denialist every wingnut in the country would be howling witch hunt and political dirty trick and whatever other catch phrase Oxyrush Limpball or Glennda the Beckerhead told them to repeat ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
Science should always be open to scrutiny–the oversimplified media coverage of some issues (like ‘vaccines and autism’) and the politics (OMG, we’re destroying the earth!) helped cause this problem of credibility. It’s not like the AG alone decided to take this on with no precedent.
***
Umm, I think that the general media coverage of these issues is that there are non-scientific cranks who believe that vaccines cause autism or that global warming is not occurring and that these people are annoying.
We know the earth’s climate cycles over hundreds and thousands and millions of years. We really need an unbiased look at the evidence that supports the primary reasons for this. Just because ice is melting, doesn’t mean that humans are primarily responsible.
***
Umm, you mean like the dozens, if not hundreds, of review studies that have been done and have reached the same general conclusions? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Wkipedia? Please.
Especially in light of the rampant Wikipedia censorship over alleged AGW. If we’re going to go down that route let’s talk about the 30,000 scientists who disagree…
Anyway..
“The physical basis of cloud parametrizations is greatly improved in models through inclusion of bulk representation of cloud microphysical properties in a cloud water budget equation, although considerable uncertainty remains. Clouds represent a significant source of potential error in climate simulations. The possibility that models underestimate systematically solar absorption in clouds remains a controversial matter. The sign of the net cloud feedback is still a matter of uncertainty, and the various models exhibit a large spread. Further uncertainties arise from precipitation processes and the difficulty in correctly simulating the diurnal cycle and precipitation amounts and frequencies.”
That’s from the 3rd IPCC report (2001)
From 2008:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080611184722.htm
“To the extent that the cloud changes actually cause temperature change, this can ultimately lead to overestimates of how sensitive Earth’s climate is to our greenhouse gas emissions”
From 2009:
“Observational data linking low-level cloud cover and temperature are scarce and the formation and dissipation of clouds is notoriously difficult to model and integrate into global climate simulations.”
So do we have an up to date model that DOES model that which the scientists themselves still can’t agree on? Seems the Hadley Center is the only one close to actual observations, though it has it’s own problems.
Anyhow, warmists the world over can celebrate! Turns out soil microbes don’t give off CO2 for very long, no matter how hot they get. Seeing as this source is at least 10x anything man produces, the “problem” is moot.
Strangely, I’m not expecting to see any fireworks and free-flowing beer just yet…
Mann will get his due. He doesn’t seem to realize that if you are going to say something and have it carry the force of law and taxes, you must be held accountable. I think he’s not used to being held accountable. Tough luck.
As for the disconnect between sexual orientation and sexual descrimination, I think the Atty Gen is trying to clarify things. Sexual descrimination is based on one’s actual gender, not lifestyle or life partner. That is, sexual descrimination is the difference of treatment of men and women, depending on situation. For example, a man and a woman do the exact same job with the exact same compentency and the woman gets paid less. That is sexual descrimination. Whether she’s a lesbian or not has nothing to do with it.
The other legal standpoint is that there is no definitive medical link as to what makes a homosexual, thereby granting an actual physical minority status. A person can be born a woman or of non-caucasian heritage and those are physical characteristics allowed by law as a reason for minority status. Then, again, whenever you set up more govt. regulation for specific cases, you exclude others. It’s a function of narrowing focus. The more exact you get, the less you can cover.
A person who is a victim of descrimination for sexual orientation has the right to sue and press charges, showing that his/her orientation provided no basis for the descrimination. One could say the same for any other minority. If you have been descriminated against for gender or race and that physical characteristic would not prevent you from being competent in whatever, you have cause for action. It’s in the Constitution. All men (and women, by inference. There is precedent to address all humans as men in the need to reduce verbiage) are created equal. That should be enough.
As for minority by means of population count, whites are a minority. There are far more people of non-caucasian heritage. Women tend to out-number men. Men die sooner, be eat the environment of work or going off to wars.
But, again, with no particular physical link that shows how a homosexual is a minority, homosexuality is then seen as a lifestyle with attendant politics and supporting one political philosophy over another is tantamount to establishing a religion through the state. So, to remove it is to remove an attachment of religion to state. I.E., you are free to worship as you please, love as you please, but it doesn’t give you special rights over another.
It’s difficult to conduct scientific research when Bible literalists have the power to shut you down. Galileo can help you on the history of that.
Is Cuccinelli prepared to subject cancer research and particle physics labs to the same scrutiny? They often end up “wasting” money on things that don’t turn out.
Good for Cuccinelli! About time someone stood up and demanded a financial accounting of Mann and the others in the climate crisis cabal. And on his other decisions, it’s high time to take more government out of people’s lives. Go Cuccinelli!
Ron from Texas -
Here’s some accountability for you:
1. The word is “discriminate.”
2. There’s no “definitive medical link” that can establish race or ethnicity or “non-caucasian heritage.” Your notion that these classes should be specifically exempted from discrimination because they are based on “physical characteristics,” whereas sexual orientation is not, is nonsensical. Race and ethnicity are at least if not more socially constructed than sexual orientation.
3. Cuccinelli wasn’t trying to distinguish between discrimination based on sexual orientation and discrimination based on sex or gender, because people already generally understand that difference. He just thinks that discrimination based on sexual orientation isn’t or shouldn’t be specifically prohibited by agencies in Virginia.
4. Whites are not a minority in this country.
Rocky, your suggestion that all diesel engines be held to the MHSA/CANMET-MMSL emissions standards for underground use is an excellent one. I’m sure Paul would be on board with that also.
This lot is going to be one heck of a job to sift. About 1,000 emails were stolen at CRU (presumably selected by searching for specific words) but that was likely from several hundred thousand emails in total. This job is going to be even bigger, and should keep a large team in work (if they can stay awake) for years.
S. Fred Singer:
We know from the leaked e-mails of Climategate that “Mike [Mann]’s trick” and the “hide the decline” are in the public domain and they don’t mean what you claim they mean and they can’t mean what you claim they mean, by simple logic applied to the context of the emails. That’s been done to death.
What we also know is that ’sceptics’ could easily (with a bit of skill) repeat Mann’s and Jones’s work and show what wrong with it. But they don’t. Why not? Not too hard to guess.
wilwonkawackadoodle:
If you are interested in the truth, you can easily find out online about the effect that volcanoes have on climate. That they produce only a tiny amount of heat compared to the sun and that volcanoes have a net cooling effect. But Eyjafjallajokull is (so far) a small volcanic eruption - only about a hundredth of Pinatubo in the early 1990s.
While much of the dialogue in the comments above concerns Michael Mann’s ‘hockey stick graph’, there are other long term records of global temperature.
Google ‘Vostok ice core’, and you’ll see that atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global temperature seem to correlate well over the last 400,000 years. Whether rising CO2 drives an increase in global temperatures (by trapping more outgoing long wave radiation in the atmosphere), or rising temperatures drive an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations (warmer ocean waters can hold less CO2 than colder waters - see Henry’s Law), it seems highly likely that as atmospheric CO2 concentrations rise faster and higher than at any point in the last 400,000 years, global temperatures will, on average, also rise.
You can even download data from the Vostok ice core here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok.html
Steers n qweerz…
I think M.Mann and the mob of pommy B’s at CRU have lost the scientific debate but have won the political debate. Weather has gone from a casual remark at the local gasoline pump to an important dinner table topic, solving the worlds problems. So to my mind, anything that will slow down the tremendous political momentum is welcome . Heads up to Cuccinelli , I want my money back.
A few tidbits from an outsider looking in (from FL). I’m just a regular Joe, but I do read.
VA AG trying to turn global climate change into fraud, hoax, criminal activity, conspiracy, etc, is in line with what most people (at least the ones I know) think about VA politics - no doubt the tea-baggers love your AG. He looks like a fool to us, but like I said, its VA.
I guess Kilimanjaro losing its ice cap was a fluke. 30% of the arctic melt a coincidence. Melting permafrost and changing climate in arctic regions superfluous. I suppose the increase in glacial caving is also a coincidence. Whatever. Canada just had its warmest April on record - I suppose that was a lie too.
The scientific community has made a strong argument for global climate change - x hundred million barrels of day of oil = a pretty good inc in warming gases, etc. Ill stick with the scientists thank you.
Im having a good time watching the GOP self-destruct.
Keith - I want my money back too, for the Iraq debaucle because there were no WMD’s. Could you get Cucc to try that bit of fraud as well?
Oh, wait, Iraq was a big GOP cock up, so I guess that means we can’t ever expect our money back, right?
“Hey Sarah, that oil you ordered is ready.
Please pick-up immediately.”
Sayre.
Finally - an AG with balls!
Cuccinelli is acting to preserve our liberties and save our wallets from the left-wing radical eco-fascists.
Hey Jack, how much do you think the taxpayer is going to spend cleaning up LA’s coast line after the BP explosion? You know, big oil for the eco neo-cons
Louis Lemire May 1st, 2010 | 8:32 pm
“30% of the arctic melt a coincidence”
As is a 30% Increase in the last 2 1/2 years.
While CO2 has been constantly increasing, Arctic ice has decreased and increased year by year by millions of square miles.
There is no corelation between CO2 and Arctic Ice Cover. None.
The trend to less Arctic ice ended with the 2007 minimum. Each year since then there has been more ice. I expect that all Arctic Ice studies that support AGW must use the 2007 data cut-off and ignore the current actual data.
In 2008 there was an Increase of about 15% in the amount of Arctic Sea Ice when compared to the 2007 level.
In 2009 there was an Increase of about 30% in the amount of Arctic Sea Ice when compared to the 2007 level.
This year, 2010, the Arctic Ice coverage is Above the 30 year average and has been at a Nine Year Record High for since the beginning of April.
There is no corelation between CO2 and Arctic Ice Cover. None.
Arctic Ice Extent for the last 9 years:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
This data visualization from the AMSR-E instrument on the Aqua satellite show the maximum sea ice extent for 2008-09, which occurred on Feb. 28, 2009.
Source: NASA Goddard’s Scientific Visualization Studio
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/326193main_sup1seaicemax_full.jpg
“As is a 30% Increase in the last 2 1/2 years.”
If you look at the full sea ice decline over decades you can see the last few years are consistent with declining arctic sea ice:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Has-Arctic-sea-ice-returned-to-normal.html
Louis Lemire May 1st, 2010 | 8:32 pm
“I guess Kilimanjaro losing its ice cap was a fluke.”
No it was no fluke, the ice on Kilimanjaro did not melt; it sublimated the same way ice cubes in the freezer get smaller even thought it is freezing cold. A very large area around Kilimanjaro was deforested, this caused a decrease in the humidity (like in your freezer) and the ice sublimated into the cold dry air. The maximum recorded temperature on Kilimanjaro is seven degrees below freezing. Ice does not melt below freezing.
It was not a fluke, it was not caused by warming, it was not caused by CO2, it was caused by people that live there chopping down the trees of the forest.
Cthulhu May 2nd, 2010 | 12:02 am
“If you look at the full sea ice decline over decades you can see the last few years are consistent with declining arctic sea ice:”
If you look at the last 20,000 years, since North America was covered by a mile thick slab of ice all the way to Wisconsin, there is a steady decrease. Prior to that there was a steady increase.
There is no correlation between Arctic Ice Cover and atmospheric CO2.
Warmer, colder, warmer, colder, the climate has always has been changing and always will be changing.
A two kilometer thick slab of ice covering all of Canada is just as normal and just as natural as fruit trees, grasses and furry woodland creatures on Ellesmere Island.
“If you look at the last 20,000 years, since North America was covered by a mile thick slab of ice all the way to Wisconsin, there is a steady decrease.”
The warming out of the glacial maximum ended 10,000 years ago. Since then the climate’s been relatively stable. But in any case arctic sea ice at current rate of decline will reach zero extent in summer sometime around the middle of this century.
As for correlation, co2 is increasing and arctic sea ice is declining which to my mind is correlation.
Cthulhu May 2nd, 2010 | 1:24 am
“But in any case arctic sea ice at current rate of decline will reach zero extent in summer sometime around the middle of this century”
So there is no data to validate the opinion that you have presented, only computer games
Other computer games put us with an ice free summer in 2014. Models have been calling for an ice free summer in five to ten years since 1958.
When the model is in conflict with the actual the model is wrong and speculation based on the model must be discarded. If the model can not be run backwards with precision to historical measurements then the model is wrong and must be discarded.
No current model run backwards, initialized with only today’s state, matches the measured record of the last 100 years. If they can not backcast accurately then they can not forecast accurately.
No forecast model today can even backcast substantial event like the little ice age or the medieval warming period. None of them.
There are just play things, they are computer games.
“co2 is increasing and arctic sea ice is declining”
So did atmospheric CO2 decrease in the last 2 years?
There is no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and Arctic Ice Cover. None.
Why debate this? The more important problem is the population boom which will eventually bust maybe due to climate change maybe due to something else maybe soon maybe later. But for us anyway it could be catastrophic (probably not so much for everything else here). Finite space doesn’t accommodate infinite growth.
Cuccinelli is trying to change the Virginia Seal and resurrect tyranny!
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not have any evidence to show that carbon dioxide (CO2) causes global warming or that is harmful to the environment.
In January,2009, I sent a FOIA request to EPA requesting such evidence. EPA responded but had no evidence. EPA referred me to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC states that water is the prevalent greenhouse gas, not CO2. From the IPCC website, “Antarctic temperature started to rise several centuries before atmospheric CO2 during past glacial terminations.” Increased CO2 is the result, not the cause of warming.
Claiming that CO2 causes global warming is analogous to concluding that high waves on the ocean cause hurricane winds.
Water produces 95% of the greenhouse effect. The contribution from CO2 is negligible. But EPA designated CO2 as a pollutant. Are they going to designate water as a pollutant by the same lack of reasoning?
CO2 is the start of our food chain. Green plants absorb CO2 and water and produce glucose (sugar) and free oxygen. Without CO2, there would not be any green plants. Without green plants, there would not be any food for animals or humans. Plants consume much more CO2 than mankind produces. Green plants need 75 billion tons of CO2 annually. Anthropogenic CO2 is about 3.5 to 6 billion tons annually. Where do plants get the other 70 billion tons? From natural sources including the oceans that store about 39,000 billion tons of CO2.
Please read Donna in DC (copied below)
Donna in DC April 29th, 2010 | 11:32 pm
Um, this comment on Fred Singer sure looks like an ad hominem attack. Why don’t you deal with the real issues, such as whether there is actually any evidence that CO2 causes global warming?
Did you know that 95% of the greenhouse effect is from water? That’s 30 times the effect of CO2. Did you know that human activity accounts for only 3% of all the CO2? We could stop burning everything and even stop breathing and it would have absolutely no discernible effect on temperature.
Look at Al Gore’s ice core chart: why didn’t he tell you that first the temperature goes up and about 800 years later the CO2 goes up? But he claims it shows that CO2 increases cause temperature increases. He has it backwards; as the oceans warm during the ice age cycle, caused by variations in the earth’s orbit, the CO2 that is dissolved in the oceans begins to come out, just like CO2 bubbling out of a warm soda.
By the way, in the past temperatures have been both warmer and colder than they are now and CO2 concentrations have been far higher. Except for the effect just noted, they just are not connected.
You can look up all this and more, such as that there is nothing unusual happening with sea level, glaciers, hurricanes, and especially temperature, as Dr. Phil Jones himself now admits (”no significant warming in 15 years” –oh, my). You will also find that the warmers have no answers for these facts and many others that have been published by Dr. Singer and other distinguished scientists. You can decide that you don’t like Dr. Singer, but you still have to deal with the evidence.
“Fraud;
Deceitful or deceptive conduct designed to manipulate another person to give something of value.
Deceitful conduct designed to manipulate another person to give something of value by (1) lying, (2) by repeating something that is or ought to have been known by the fraudulent party as false or suspect or (3) by concealing a fact from the other party which may have saved that party from being cheated.
The existence of fraud will cause a court to void a contract and can give rise to criminal liability.”
If scientists trying to prove global warming are manipulating data or concealing data in order to receive funding from the governments of the world,,,,, I’m sorry, but that is fraud.
Andrew30: “So did atmospheric CO2 decrease in the last 2 years? There is no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and Arctic Ice Cover. None.”
You are confusing correlation with perfect fit. There is a correlation between smoking and cancer but that doesn’t mean every lifelong smoker develops cancer.
Ted:
The EPA addresses your points in plenty of detail. See their response to comment 2.19. Extract:
“We also find no support for the assertion that water is responsible for 90% or 95% of the greenhouse effect in the scientific literature. Calculations by Kiehl and Trenberth (1997) suggest that water contributes about 60% of the greenhouse effect in clear sky conditions and 75% in cloudy conditions (including the cloud contribution) conditions, and 15% in cloudy conditions. Because the mass of water in the atmosphere is much larger
than the mass of CO2, this implies that per ton or per molecule, CO2 is actually a much more effective GHG than water vapor.”
And their response to Comment 3.52 which is a claim the co2 lags temperature in ice core records. Extracts:
“Although the assessment literature (see, for example, Jansen et al., 2007) indicates that the primary initiator of past periods of warming over at least the past 3 million years was orbital forcing, which refers to changes in the seasonal and latitudinal distribution of incoming solar radiation linked to regular variations in the earth’s orbit around the sun. CO2 and GHGs were an important amplifier of these past periods of global warming. As stated in Jansen et al., “It is very likely that glacial-interglacial CO2 variations have strongly amplified climate variations, but it is unlikely that CO2 variations have triggered
the end of glacial periods.”
and
“The reason why CO2 can be an initiator in present times when it was only an amplifier previously is that previously CO2 concentrations changed only in response to climatic changes, but in the current period, CO2 concentrations are changing due to human emissions. CO2 serves as both a cause and an effect.”
Scientists in China, India, EU, and Brazil must be rolling the floor laughing their …off. When ill-read quacks run the government in states like Virginia the decline of science and technological progress in the US is certain. Cuccinelli first of all lacks the credentials to evaluate scientific findings. It is an asinine law that is enabling him to pass judgment on matters he is ignorant of.
Andrew30- Ice and snow most certainly do melt below freezing, because the sun is quite capable of heating surface objects to melting point regardless.
More on Cuccinelli and the Virginia seal
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/05/01/cuccinelli-virginia-seal/
from over the pond here, we do not have a problem making our lifestyles more efficient to do our bit for the world. we don’t have a problem with rabid politicisation from hardline conservatives that would rather deny science than change their lifestyles. and it adam gets his science from christopher brooker in the daily telegraph, then i might as well get my science and religious education from fox news.
all in all, if you believe in man made global warming or not, green technology, reducing waste, using susatainable techniques, saving energy from recylcling etc tec can only be a good thing. you may like living next to a coal fired power station, or on the lousiana coast next to an oil slisk, but i’d take a wind farm any day. won’t see wind turbines killing millions of organisms.
what you’ve all got to worry about is in the billions of years history of earth, the population of humans has gone from about 2.5 billion in 1952ish to over 7 billion 50 years later. that has over doubled in 50 years. the days of overshoot resulting from exponential growth are here. we’ve gotta hope we can curb oru population growth pretty quick, or nature documentaries will be things they used to film 30 years ago.
the underlying motivator, i would posit, for denying climate change, is more likely selfishness, the unwillingness to change habits, and good old fashioned american dream capitalism.
long live the bbc in britain that allows us to get unbiased, informed, unpoliticised, uncorporate information.
johno wrote:
if you believe in man made global warming or not, green technology, reducing waste, using susatainable techniques, saving energy from recylcling etc tec can only be a good thing.
fine, but to just do *something* that’s unwarranted, like cap and trade that saves nothing, or spend a trillion on pumping co2 back into the ground, when it might be a complete waste of money, or to force people to change their lifestyles when that may not be the sensible approach would not be the brightest approach; it may accomplish nothing, or near nothing, make folks think they’re doing something, and deflect from doing the correct things;
Why does Charles Battig, a MD, get a “Dr.” in front of his name, but Michael Mann, a PhD, does not? And why is a medical doctor the president of “Piedmont Chapter Virginia Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment?” And why does Mr. Battig have any credibility on environmental science?
I find it fascinating that so many people think that it is fine for a state government to go fishing into someone’s life without even a modicum of justification. Why don’t we just shorten the process and just have internet providers deliver copies of all e-mails to the AG office? I am sure he could find something about someone he doesn’t like
Shouldn’t their be the most minimum evidence that there may have been some bad behavior before instituting an investigation? A group of screaming internetters does not constitute evidence, just self-serving noise. Maybe Cuccinelli should grow up.
See, this is how authoritarians do “science.” Mann has produced results they don’t like, and he’s prominent in climate science. Now, since authoritarians think it’s all about obeying the leader, they figure if they can discredit Mann, then the work of legions of scientists on global warming must be false. If Al Gore has a big electricity bill, then global warming must be false. If Darwin was wrong about anything, then 160 years of biology must all be nonsense. Look, when we have to spend trillions putting a sea wall up down the east coast, I’m sending the bill to the anti-science folks.
I find it fascinating that so many people think that it is fine for a state government to go fishing into someone’s life without even a modicum of justification. Why don’t we just shorten the process and just have internet providers deliver copies of all e-mails to the AG office? I am sure he could find something about someone he doesn’t like
Shouldn’t their be the most minimum evidence that there may have been some bad behavior before instituting an investigation? A group of screaming internetters does not constitute evidence, just self-serving noise. Maybe Cuccinelli should grow up.
***
Exactly.
Ted said:
“You can look up all this and more, such as that there is nothing unusual happening with sea level, glaciers, hurricanes, and especially temperature, as Dr. Phil Jones himself now admits (”no significant warming in 15 years” –oh, my). You will also find that the warmers have no answers for these facts and many others that have been published by Dr. Singer and other distinguished scientists. You can decide that you don’t like Dr. Singer, but you still have to deal with the evidence.”
You can also look all of those up on Skeptical Science and see that every single thing you said is untrue or has been refuted in the scientific literature. YOU have to deal with the evidence, and the evidence says you’re full of ponyloaf.
Why does Charles Battig, a MD, get a “Dr.” in front of his name, but Michael Mann, a PhD, does not?
***
Because physicians are commonly referred to as “Dr.” and holders of academic Ph.D.’s are often not. Don’t worry - everyone understands that Mann outranks Battig in the intellectual hierarchy.
Your poor americans, you are really going downhill. Say goodbye to science, then to innovation, then to your only source of money, because all the production job are already in china. Good scientists are more and more retiscent to work in the US. Take it this way: inmigration is not going to be an issue anymore!
let me guess.. there is coal in Virginia?
Murci3lag0, the reports of our demise are greatly exaggerated. You should know that we Americans and we Virginians will fight back. The anti-science forces represented by Cuccinelli are in the minority. Most Americans and most Virginians support science and will rebel against witch hunts such as this.
I am amazed that there are so many people posting here who believe the lies of the AGW deniers. Cuccinelli is being used by the lobbyists. He is a fool. The only possible good, in conjunction with his breast paranoia, is that people will be laughing at him too hard to ever elect him to another public office. Shame on him.
Why is the State providing grants for studies on climate change in the first place? Hold ‘em accountable for these funds.
Why is the State providing grants for studies on climate change in the first place? Hold ‘em accountable for these funds.
***
The state is supporting academic research at its public universities?
Shocking.
I am amazed that there are so many people posting here who believe the lies of the AGW deniers. Cuccinelli is being used by the lobbyists. He is a fool. The only possible good, in conjunction with his breast paranoia, is that people will be laughing at him too hard to ever elect him to another public office. Shame on him.
***
Cucc is just pandering to the paranoid conservative base. It’s amusing that his supporters don’t understand that he’s playing them as suckers.
Since when did being a skeptic mean you do not believe in the natural choas of Earths Climate; it changes!
The question for my mind, has and always will be, is why is it those with social and political agendas always have to have someone or something to vilify.
From the early 90’s I believed that “the Earth is warming brigade” were seeking to build and argument to tax air; plain and simple. The first decade of this millenium and we had the answer. Their Y2K agenda was dead and buried so it was lets have a go at CO2 [they love 3 letter acronyms as they role off the tongue]. CO2 is pretty much emitted from all forced organic reactions [just add a catlyst normally heat; Industry is good at this]along with all kinds of scary noxious and toxic chemicals; so now we have a simple jump of political logic to group CO2 as a pollutant. In AGW imagery all we see are belching smokestacks, but whoa there isn’t CO2 an invisible gas. Not for those that have neither done, or those that choose not to remember, basic school chemistry and biology [The Carbon Cycle].
So we have the Politico “Mushroom Theory” come into play. The dangerous left fringe with marxist intentions like populations of mushrooms because they live in the dark and do not normally like the responsibilty of entering the light because that means they have to take accountability for understanding the consequences of their personal interaction with the world around them. The mushroom likes to be safe in large numbers [fish schooling, ant nesting, birds flocking, beasts herding] where it is easy to feel protected by alligning belief and behaviour. Create a “scary monster” and the politically adept and intended are away.
So let’s get down to dealing with this AGW fraud in the right way. Skeptics keep focussed on the goal of Normal Science not this Post Normal Gray Science that NASA, CRU, Penn State, etc or the so called believers Gore, Mann, Pauchari, Jones , Hansen et al will pull you back into the dark where their arguments hold sway with the mushrooms. This is where it is easy to use vilification and ad hominem tactics to appease and distract the angry and frightened mobs of mushrooms.
No, we need to keep away from political debating arenas and focus the debate to the Science Floor and the Courts. You only have to read the edgy emotional writings of the ‘Believers” in this blog to see that even well educated believers who have moved to the AGW side limit their arguments to Post Normal Reviewed scientific Papers. They will not expost themselves to the harsh glare of non-gray science.
This is where we need to ask them why they do not use NASA GISS’s ARGO [Satellite and Radiosond Technology; currently the best avaliable] Oceanograpghic Temperature database which is measuring the global oceans in real time and which can find no warming in fact marginal cooling since 2003. The Oceans being the biggest heat sink on the planet [top 2.6 metres heat holding capacity greater than the Earths entire atmoshere]not warming then ergo the atmoshere cannot be warming! This is the AGWarmers own NASA and Hansen with this data so why is it not front page news……..the crisis is over mushrooms you can now sleep safe in your beds!
They continue to “hide” anything and everything that they can.
Like all bullies they do not like going hard on grounds where they cannot influence the referee and the result.
So lets please keep the game up to them but in our well lit arenas.
Happy hunting Guys and Girls, Blizzard.
Releasing misleading/wrong information resulting in financial implications is a fraud.
If there’s nothing wrong with Mann’s research and conduct then there’s nothing to worry about.
Unfortunately in the case of climate studies (not “science”), research has already been compromised and deeply interconnected with politics, and the dependency/interaction is now mutual. In such a system each counterpart acts according to its own rules, politics with laws and research with transparency and accuracy.
Seems its only a matter of time before our rogue Attorney General starts investigating what we watch on TV and the internet that he finds offensive…
The hate, vitriol, and uneducated bashing in here scares me far more than terrorists do.
Why? Because you all would have us blindly destroy our world because you are afraid of accepting the truth of your own actions. You hate mongers seem quite happy to let cancer kill us all from the particulates, mercury, and radioactive dust that comes from fossil fuel plants and vehicles. Yes. It’s true. More radioactive material has been released into our air since we started buring fossil fuels than all of the nuclear reactors COMBINED (including chernobil). Despite this fact we banned all new reactors for the last 30 years while we built thousands of fossil fuel plants. Just look up the reports and articles about the safety checks of the Comanche Peak nuclear plant prior to it’s going online. A coal plant 100+ miles away was emitting so much radioactive dust from it’s stacks that it was triggering the alarms at Comanche Peak constantly.
The politicians and businessmen that are bashing AGW are the exact same ones that denied Agent Orange was bad. The same ones that resisted any evidence that asbestos causes cancer. The same ones that claimed we were going into an ice age in the 70’s when AGW was first seriously considered. The same that said PCBs were harmless. The same ones that said seatbelts were unnecessary. We knew then that ALL of these things are bad for us humans yet we still fought for our right to kill ourselves because it might cost us a couple more bucks in the short term.
The professor has already been vindicated by a VERY stringent review. This is nothing more than a witch hunt designed to boost Ken Cuccinelli’s standings with those that willingly shove their heads in the sand in the hopes of making it to the 2012 presidential race.
What I’d like to see is for a few brave Attorney Generals to start investigating the leaders of the anti-AGW campaign crowd for FRAUD and MISREPRESENTATION. For negligent homicide of all those that have died due to fossil fuels over the years. For personally profiting from the fossil fuel industry that gives politicians MILLIONS per year to muddy the waters so that they don’t have to compete with the new crowd of green energy patent holders.
I have one question for all of you that don’t believe in AGW. If it’s so likely that tens of thousands of scientists, politicians, and environmental groups have constructed such a vast and well kept conspiracy, isn’t it equally likely that the opposing side has also fabricated a giant conspiracy to keep their profits rolling in unopposed no matter who it kills?
You see, this is the beauty of science. Any other scientist can take the data and double check the AGW findings. If anyone has fabricated things it’ll show up in statistical analysis, peer review, and other systems that serve as a check against bad science. Yet there is NO HARD (OR SOFT) EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. If there was everyone would know about it by now. They’ve been attacking AGW for 50 plus years with NOTHING to show it’s fraud or a conspiracy. NOT ONE THING!
Wind farms actually DRIVE DOWN the price of electricity. Refitting your home for efficiency via new windows, insulation, and caulking will save you a lot of money on your utilities. Driving a fuel efficient car instead of an SUV will cut your gasoline cost in half at the least. Growing drought resistant grass and shrubbery will slice your water bill drasticly. Having leftovers from home cooked dinners will trim your food expenses in half over dining out.
The truth is going green SAVES ALL OF US MONEY ( as well as lives, gives us clear air. And yes, saves the polar bears.) Yet that’s not a good enough reason to go green it seems. The fossil fuel giants KNOWINGLY LIE when they say going green costs you too much. The money factor should be enough of a reason for ANYONE to decide going green is the best way. Yet many of us persist in resisting the change simply because someone told them LIES to save their friends from having to compete in new industries. Don’t believe me on the money savings? Check the facts for yourself. There’s so much literature out there that I don’t need to link to anything.
Unfortunately I suspect that I’m asking for too much. After all, there are still millions of Americans that believe Oswald did not shoot Kennedy. Or that think the moon landing is fake. Or numerous other easily debunked conspiracy theories.
reason May 3rd, 2010 | 1:19 am
Is the government paying you to watch TV and publish reports about what you see?
Perhaps you could come up with a computer model to tell us what will bw oe TV in 2050.
The people have a right to ask.
On April 29th, 2010 | 10:17 pm, S Fred Singer, PhD said this:
[Quote]….We know from the leaked e-mails of Climategate that Prof.Michael Mann was involved in the international conspiracy to “hide the decline” [in global temperatures], using what chief conspirator Dr.Phil Jones refers to as “Mike [Mann]’s trick….”[end quote]
Now Dr. Singer should know that ‘hide the decline’ was nothing to do with global temperatures, it was the deviation of tree-rings as temperature proxies from actual temperatures. Likewise “Mike [Mann]’s trick” isn’t what Dr. Singer implies. Both are discussed extensively in the scientific literature. So either Dr. Singer was being dishonest, or he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
See this:
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/u/3/7nnVQ2fROOg
So, Dr. Singer, which is true? Were you a) telling fibs, or b) don’t you know what you’re talking about? [My money's on a).]
PS Regarding [Dr Singer's quote]“hide the decline” [in global temperatures][end quote], what happened to ‘Unstoppable Global Warming’ [Dr Singer's book]? Was it all dishonest drivel or have you changed your mind?
I’d really like to hear!
Hmmmm. Look at the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act — looks to me like almost everything asked for is outside the window of applicability. University of Virginia officials are required to look for fraud in all research done there, at the time — as I read the Act, that means there is three years from the date of the last review to do something. Mann’s been gone for five years, so nothing would fall in that three-year window.
Here’s the section I’m wondering about:
“Scared Citizen” said:
There’s been no ban on new reactors in the U.S. Cost over runs, especially at places like Texas’s Comanche Peak, which came in more than double the projected cost and nearly double the expected construction time, dissuaded banks from financing such projects, and utilities from building them.
There was no ban on new reactors in the U.S.
artesian,
The Wegman report was a highly deceitful plagiarised report, any claims of its objectivity are bogus.
google Wegman plagiarism site:deepclimate.org
Lots there to read! Shows that Wegman wasn’t original, distorted its sources and was intended to deceive.
What’s the penalty for deceiving the US Congress?
google Wegman plagiarism congress site:deepclimate.org
deleted by moderator
CarbonKing
Would you have any independent evidence for your claims, or are they just plain malicious libel?
Bear in mind that independent studies show that the Hockey stick is reliable and is not dependent upon tree-rings. The Wegman report was a deceitful sham [see above].
e.g.:
a) Luthi et al. 2008, http://tinyurl.com/yewgq8l
b) Huang, Pollack and Shen 2008, http://tinyurl.com/yknp5uz
So, are you being honest or not?
Hmmm-GEdonates 35-40 million to obama campaign gets inside track to windgenerator production. obama says OK to some drilling offshore, drill platform explodes. Just coincidences I’m sure. I hope this disaster is investigated by ba real investigator, not the lap dog holder.
What has to be understood: Wingers believe that “climate change” is a fraud invented to enrich a few because this is standard operating procedure for their own “leaders”. Unfettered predatory capitalism knows no rules. Dollar dollar bill, y’all.
This is only the surface of this massive fraud. The forensic economics are available at the blog given.
Question to the GW skeptics: *If* Mann is investigated and no wrong-doing or fraud is found, will you then be satisfied that his results are correct? Or will you *again* say the investigation was white-washed and his results *must* still be wrong? In other words, is any amount of investigating going to make you happy? I suspect not.
Criz May 3rd, 2010 9:34 am asked: “*If* Mann is investigated and no wrong-doing or fraud is found, will you then be satisfied that his results are correct? ”
Absolutely not. The investigation has nothing whatsoever to do with Mann’s “results,” (which have previously been found as scientifically defective) and everything to do with the statements made in conjunction with specific grant applications. Two different issues entirely.
Criz: “Or will you *again* say the investigation was white-washed and his results *must* still be wrong?”
Intelligent people can discern whether other investigations in the US, the UK, and elsewhere have been “whitewashes.”
Criz: “In other words, is any amount of investigating going to make you happy?”
Full scientific disclosure and truth - which have not been strong suits of the Climategate “Team” including Mann, Hansen, and Jones et al - is what will make most skeptics “happy.” Nothing less.
Only last week an Irish university researcher was ordered by the Irish courts to disclose his publicly-sponsored research, but oddly pronounced his tree ring data - which was used by Mann in the original “hockey stick” formulation - to be grossly unsuitable for any kind of climate research.
Criz: “I suspect not.”
And you are correct. But for the wrong reasons.
On April 30th, 2010 | 8:18 am Buster Went said:
[Quote] I wonder why the warming alarmists have never been able to explain why the increase in temperature precedes the increase in man made carbon dioxide. If in fact increase in man made CO2 was the sole cause of increase in temperature, one would expect the increase in man made CO2 to precede the increases in temperature…. [End quote]
Note the absolute certainty of this claim by Buster Went. If it were true, BW would have a point, but it is a false claim. Either BW is being dishonest, or he is ill-informed. Not only is the ‘CO2 lags warming’ well understood, it was predicted by Lorius et al. In 1990, ten years before the ice-cores could resolve such short intervals! Furthermore, this lag does not disprove the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. John Tyndall showed this in 1859.
Claiming that the ‘CO2 lags warming’ somehow proves that CO2 is not responsible for warming is like claiming that chickens do not lay eggs, because they have been observed to hatch from them!
Nobody who’s honest and knows what they’re talking about claims that CO2 is the only cause of warming. There are numerous forcings and feedbacks: Astronomical; solar; albedo; greenhouse gases; aerosols; & etc.
Further reading:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
Google
John Tyndall CO2
Dunning-Kruger Effect - my favourite is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyOHJa5Vj5Y
The only wing to trust is the truth wing — the left and right are both totally rigged and working together to keep honest citizens continually fighting with each other. The extreme left and the extreme right spell the same outcome: totalitarianism
Now that is what all honest people should be fighting against.
Study at a AGW site like Real Climate and a Skeptic site like Wattsupwiththat and then form your opinion. I had a complete change of mind when I did.
Garry is either being dishonest or is misinformed about Mann’s work.
The Wegman report was a utter scandal. See above. Like many leading-edge scientific endeavours, it wasn’t perfect. But it showed the way. His team’s work has been confirmed by subsequent teams using non-tree-ring proxies and ice-cores and has been found to be largely correct.
Luthi et al. 2008, http://tinyurl.com/yewgq8l
Huang, Pollack and Shen 2008, http://tinyurl.com/yknp5uz
Irrespective of the tripe parroted around the denialosphere, the hockey stick isn’t broken, it’s now been joined by a whole hockey team. Get over it and start being honest.
Just in case anyone else is going to cite the Wegman Report as a criticism of Michael Mann.
Google Wegman report plagiarism
The results are shocking.
Plus more dirt about the Wegman report coming soon!
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/wegman_and_black_helicopters.php
A lot is at stake here. So far every investigation has confirmed that the recent warming is based on physics; if they’re right, then all attempts to influence the climate by controlling the emissions of the so-called “pollutant” carbon dioxide are needed–and very promptly. This includes the UN Climate Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, the Waxman-Markey Cap & Trade (Tax) bill, the EPA “Endangerment Finding” based on the UN’s IPCC conclusion, and the upcoming Kerry-Lieberman-Graham bill in the US Senate, all the windfarms, both onshore and offshore, the ethanol projects, and the hydrogen economy, plus more nuclear power plants, tide power, biofuel from algae, a new smart electrical grid, energy efficiency improvements, smart roofs on buildings, and a vast expansion of the educational system to teach enough young people what’s needed to adjust to a sustainable economy.
Imagine!
luther blissett May 1st, 2010 | 12:53 pm
It’s difficult to conduct scientific research when Bible literalists have the power to shut you down. Galileo can help you on the history of that.
Is Cuccinelli prepared to subject cancer research and particle physics labs to the same scrutiny? They often end up “wasting” money on things that don’t turn out.
Mr. Cucc (the rep with a spine) just wants to see if the data is from real science or the political left ideology.
I find some of the comments here absolutely amazing.
So, the climate change is a conspiracy of professors and academics who are trying to somehow (yet to be seen) get “millions of dollars” from the public for…some cause (yet to be seen).
Most of the gruntwork is done by grad students (who are paid about 20-25K a year) and postdocs (paid 30-40K a year), and they are all part of the conspiracy, too worried about their paychecks.
We should doubt them and not believe a word they are saying.
In the meantime, people paid by oil companies (who make hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars a year from everyone who writes comments here) are telling the unvarnished truth, and are to be trusted. No profit motivation there at all. That is not a conspiracy to hide the truth. No, sir.
Wow.
My question is simple:
When will we get the results of this governmental inquiry?
If there is no “smoking gun”, will the AG be as vociferous about it as one might expect if there is one?
And since the UK Royal Commission didn’t find one in its investigation of the recent U. of E. Anglia participation in the so-called “climategate”, I’d say the jury is still out (not on climate change but on Mann’s particular hockey stick “trick”).
And I wonder if Cuccinelli will be as diligent going after potential right-wing wrongdoing? (rhetorical question)
Leaving us Liberty U. and Regent U. as sources of believable scientific work?
Dang. Somebody signing in as “mt” in a climate flamefest who isn’t me. There oughta be a law.
On the whole, a surprisingly not-yet-unhinged set of comments, here. Well done y’all.
the real mt
cuccinelli is a nut! climate change is real. and bashing gays is sick
As ususal, if you just ‘follow the money trail’ you will always be led to the truth.
Mann is simply another parasite living very well, via the usual fraud, courtesy of the tax-slavers.
It’s about time Mann and the rest of the global warming/climate change scam crowd need to be investigated, arrested, and jailed for fraud. AGW is the biggest scam in the worlds history and it can’t go unpunished. Great work Cuccinelli.
Isn’t it amazing how quick some can get their tail feathers all perked up. Is it not Mr. Cuccinelli’s job to look out for the states interests? I also find it funny that some are all of a sudden worried about how much the investgation will cost. This from a group who is waving the flag of victory after a healthcare plan which will cost us billions has been forced down our throats. Now their worried about the cost? If the guy did nothing wrong then okay. If he did then he should be held accountable. Truth is you don’t like one of your own being questioned. Get use to it!
Mark, the allegation isn’t fraud that the AG has any jurisdiction over. He’s claiming science fraud. It’s out of his purview (and with the federal involvement, so is the other stuff). This research has already been audited by the official in Virginia who is required to audit the research.
And it’s a federal issue on that part that the AG could claim jurisdiction.
So, Cucinnelli flunks Constitutional law, doesn’t know science, and is wasting taxpayer time and money on this.
In the meantime, Virginia has several innocent people on death row. That’s the AG’s job, to fix that. What’s he done?
On May 2nd, 2010 | 9:13 am, Ted said:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not have any evidence to show that carbon dioxide (CO2) causes global warming or that is harmful to the environment.
Ted is another Dunning-Kruger challenged individual. The evidence that CO2 causes warming and is harmful to the environment this is also widely available.
For example go to http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
‘evidence to show that carbon dioxide (CO2) causes global warming or that is harmful to the environment.’ look at the arguments [all backed by science].
Claim 1
For ‘carbon dioxide (CO2) causes global warming’: see 33; 34; 38; 42; 45; 48; 49; 51; 52; 54; 57; 66; 67; 71; 78; 81; 83; 95; 99; 105 & 109.
Claim 2
For CO2 damages the environment: see 39; 42 [see link to What Corals are Dying to Tell Us About CO2 and Ocean Acidification]; 55; 85
Claim 3
Regarding water vapour: see 24 & 96.
In-short, Ted is spouting denialist arguments. This doesn’t necessarily mean Ted’s being dishonest. But these arguments are bogus, deceitful and have been repeatedly debunked. Many people have been deceived by Dr. Singer’s false claims [who Ted mentions].
Need to find out more about Dr Singer?
Google Fred Singer denial industry shill
Google exxonsecrets Fred Singer
Of course the EPA points to the IPCC, because they are the world-class experts. Of course the denial industry have been doing their best to denigrate and undermine the credibility of the IPCC, but the denialists are liars and are paid to lie.
Many of the IPCC scientists are social scientists working to a pre-determined agenda. The head of the IPCC is a structural engineer or some related profession not a climate scientist. Didn’t over 30,000 concerned scientists sign a petition against the Kyoto Treaty because it was based on false premises?
How can one say CO2 damages the atmosphere? It is pumped into green houses (which do not get warmer from it) so the plants will grow bigger and faster. Try to separate the second most necessary and invisible molecule in the world, CO2, from pollutants like NO, H2SO4, CO, mercury, etc. Take a deep breath and exhale. That’s CO2. It is necessary for our existance; as a greenhouse gas it is miniscule.
Don’t trust big oil for sure. They may be a big part of the ruse that is keeping good citizens continually roiled up and not paying attention to the facts.
Just as a litmus test: if you believe (1) in a young earth, e.g., around 6000 years old, and (2) creationism, then you are hereby disallowed from engaging in ANY discussion about science research. Sorry, but if you can’t even understand those basic fundamentals, then your input on any scientific topic just adds useless and distracting noise to the conversation. Shoo.
p.s.,
Two review panels now have cleared the CRU scientists involved in the “climategate” from any wrongdoing. Below is some copied-and-pasted text about those reviews:
The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee found no basis for accusations of dishonesty and no attempt to mislead on the part of the scientists.
Lord Oxburgh’s Science Assessment Panel: “We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather informal.
I’m confused. First of all this isn’t about whether or not climate change is real or man made or whatever. this is about an out of control AG trying to persecute findings that he doesn’t believe in. Is it worth it? Is it worth the tax money it’ll take to prove what ALL THE OTHER INVETIGATIONS have proven? That there was no wrong-doing…this is absurd that so many people who claim to be conservative and about small government will tolerate government interference into academia. UVA should fight this tooth and nail and force the AG to step up his reasoning. $500K in grant money was used, what about going after research that used grant money for the H1N1 virus? Or AIDS? Where does it stop? Science changes as discoveries are made, it’s not up to an AG to do that, it’s up to the scientific community as a whole.
@ william
“Just as a litmus test: if you believe (1) in a young earth, e.g., around 6000 years old, and (2) creationism, then you are hereby disallowed from engaging in ANY discussion about science research. Sorry, but if you can’t even understand those basic fundamentals, then your input on any scientific topic just adds useless and distracting noise to the conversation. Shoo”
quite simply the most sensible thing mentioned on this whole thread. quite how anyone denying biology, geology, palaentology, genetics, carbon dating, chemistry, physics, cosmology etc can have any right or influence on matters scientific is a massive insult to intelligence, academia and common sense. the guy’s a first rate dolt, and needs to go back to school to be un-indoctrinated. he has the scientific wherewithall of a brick.
calm down May 5th, 2010 | 10:53 am, said:
“Many of the IPCC scientists are social scientists working to a pre-determined agenda. The head of the IPCC is a structural engineer or some related profession not a climate scientist. Didn’t over 30,000 concerned scientists sign a petition against the Kyoto Treaty because it was based on false premises?”
I think you are confused:
“Many of the IPCC scientists are social scientists working to a pre-determined agenda. The head of the IPCC is a structural engineer or some related profession not a climate scientist.”
a) This is BS. O.K. You made the claim, you list their names and fields.
b) Why is Pachauri head of the IPCC? ExxonMobil’s Randy Randol, faxed to the Bush team calling for Robert Watson’s dismissal as head of the IPCC.
See page 52
Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science - http://tinyurl.com/wxd7
“Didn’t over 30,000 concerned scientists sign a petition against the Kyoto Treaty because it was based on false premises?”
c) These scientists aren’t climate experts, they’re a hotch-potch of dentists; MDs; Veterinarians; Engineers; biologists etc. They’re understanding of the climate falls far below that of a climate expert. It was only ever a PR exercise for the denial industry. Even if they were relevantly qualified [most of them aren’t, they only comprise a tiny percentage of those who are.
Google: DeSmogBlog Oregon Petition debunked
d) The Petition Project was funded in part by the George Marshall Institute, which was funded by Exxon.
e) There was some serious fraud going on, because the original report was circulated in a format almost identical to a National Academy of Sciences reprint and therefore peer-reviewed. Which led to this National Academies press release.
Google: STATEMENT BY THE COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES REGARDING GLOBAL CHANGE PETITION - April 20, 1998
f) As for the Oregon Petition pseudo-science, this has also been widely debunked.
Google: Comment Oregon Petition Mike McCracken
g) google RC Wiki OISM
The Oregon Petition is pseudo-scientific garbage
Michael Cunningham May 4th, 2010 | 5:58 am said:
“As ususal, if you just ‘follow the money trail’ you will always be led to the truth.
Mann is simply another parasite living very well, via the usual fraud, courtesy of the tax-slavers.”
Do you have any proof for your most serious allegations against an eminent world-class scientist? Or are you just another of the Dunning-Kruger afflicted, determined to demonstrate your appalling ignorance to the world?
A riposte to those who claim the 31,000 scientists reject AGW. This is a thinly-veiled reference to the Oregon Petition which was a politically motivated stunt, funded at least in-part by the Exxon- funded think-tank. The 31,000 for the large part fall far short of the definition of a scientist. The Oregon Petition definition was possession of a basic degree, including numerous non-scientific disciplines, such as medicine; dentistry; veterinary and engineering. In reality, a scientist must have more than a bachelor’s degree in a recognised scientific discipline, this is normally a PhD in their primary discipline.
Here is an open letter from 255 members of the US National Academy of Sciences in defence of climate research.
http://www.pacinst.org/climate/climate_statement.pdf
Despite the numerous similar claims here by ill-informed posters here, the hockey stick is not broken, it is stronger than ever and has been confirmed by numerous sources. It is notable that for the most part these posters quote the same notoriously unreliable denialist website, which is well known for its connection to the Denial Industry. AFAICT, not one cited any science – how telling! It seems likely these [ahem] individuals did not read the science, they just took a blogger’s word – a blogger who has been shown to be repeatedly dishonest. This blogger allied with other bloggers, all tied to the denial industry have been falsely accusing eminent scientists like Mann of dishonesty.
If you visit the URL below, you will find the relevant extracts and links to the science. I request that you read the science for yourselves – Don’t take my word for it, I repeat, please read the science.
Properly informed, now engage your critical thinking and consider whether it’s worth spending around $500,000 to investigate around $500,000 which did not go to Mann, but which funded his team and a laboratory over six years. It’s likely that Mann received ~$40,000 a year out of this. Certainly ~$40,000 is not a fortune. I think that’s excellent value for a world-class scientist like Mann. This investigation always was an bad idea, and it’s a waste of Virginia residents’ tax dollars. Cuccinelli clearly wants to make a name for himself, don’t let him make a fool of you and waste tax dollars at the same time!
http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
Perhaps I didn’t make it clear in my previous post that the figures were a guess.
I’d also like to clarify that Mann wouldn’t have had control of the money. that would stay with the University.
So Cuccinelli is a biased idjit,
BTW google: Cuccinelli is a member and proud spokesman for The Tea Party which is funded by Oil and Coal interests. He is abusing his office and Taxpayer resources to pursue the Oil and Coal Tea Party agenda.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/05/cuccinelli_says_his_not_target.html
Hidden agenda anyone?
Cuccinelli can start this investigation, but the British may announce who the hackers were and embarrass the denialists.
“There have been indications that the hackers could have been based in Russia, and some experts believe they may have been hired by sceptics based in the US.”—The Financial Times (4-15-10)
Shortly after the so-called “Climategate” e-mail scandal got underway, the British authorities announced that the National Extremism Tactical Coordination Unit (NETCU) was assisting Norfolk Constabulary with the investigation into the allegations of computer hacking at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU).
The global warming denialist bloggers appeared nonplussed by this development, but the involvement of the NETCU is really not unexpected.
The U.K. Times (12-5-09) reports that the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) “works closely” with the U.K.’s Meteorological Service (MET), which is a branch of the U.K.’s Ministry of Defense.
The British consider global warming a threat to their national security. If hackers are breaking into the servers of CRU scientists who work with a department of the U.K. Ministry of Defense and are posting stolen e-mails on the server of an “internet security business” in Tomsk Russia, it should come as no surprise that the British authorities are going to want to know who is doing that.
“Patriotic” Tomsk hackers have a history of attacking the Kremlin’s critics.