Quote from Intrepid :

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2 ... 7/solar_as_big_as_people/

Quote :

For now the long-term implications of the SORCE data are unknown. All that can be said with any certainty is that through 2004-2007, the Sun warmed the planet much more powerfully than had been thought.


"We cannot jump to any conclusions based on what we have found during this comparatively short period and we need to carry out further studies to explore the Sun's activity," says Haigh.

That's about the crux of it atm, imo. Three years of data is really nothing. There's a long way to go on this. Interesting though.

Skepticgate?!

http://content.usatoday.com/co ... agiarism-investigation-/1

Check out the names behind the statements............
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... ;feature=player_embedded#!

Make your own mind up about what they want to achieve.

Oh, for my fan club - Is it a conspiracy theory when I'm directly quoting ?

Silly me, of course it is - Sleep well little sheep.

Quote from Electrik Kar :

Skepticgate?!

Lucia's decided it's going to be Jeff's alternative, "Copygate". We don't argue with Lucia.. LOL!

Quote from Racer X NZ :

Check out the names behind the statements............
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... ;feature=player_embedded#!

Make your own mind up about what they want to achieve.

Oh, for my fan club - Is it a conspiracy theory when I'm directly quoting ?

Silly me, of course it is - Sleep well little sheep.

Okay, some of these quotes may be correct.. I didn't watch the entire video.. but I know straight away that two are not correct. One is the John Houghton quote, the other is the Steve Schneider quote.

Now.. it is true to say that Schneider did say this, but it's selectively quoted (and he complained a lot about being misquoted) and frankly the complete quote is no less damning.. but it's not quoted properly in the video and the context is slightly off as a result.

Houghton didn't use those words. He actually claimed he didn't say anything LIKE that quote. Turns out that what he DID say was actually very similar to the misquote, with pretty much the same meaning and significance, but again the quote in the video is not correct.

So that's 100% of the quotes that I know, in the video, that I know are not quoted correctly.. so I can't place confidence in the rest of them to be correct.

I certainly don't mean to shoot you down. As it happens I do believe that there is a kind of a world governance "conspiracy" at the UN level. You don't need to believe in conspiracy theories to know that a legally binding global carbon tax/trade is effectively ENRON on a global scale, and no matter which way you dice it, that amounts definitively to global governance. It shouldn't come as a surprise that the UN, which is effectively a tier of world government, forms the IPCC specifically to find man-made global warming and then make recommendations on dealing with it. Note that the stated purpose of the IPCC was not to assess IF there was a danger from global warming, but find the EXTENT of the danger. The premise, therefore, was not scientific but political.

But.. back to my point.. incorrect quotes are bad. It's easy to dismiss a misquote, and it's particularly annoying for us climate sceptics when the correct quote would have been just as damning.

Sorry for the inaccuracies, my point is that this is what's being stated by a number of people in positions to turn their statements into 'reality'.

As you said, even the stated 'misquotes' are a case of exact wordage rather than intent, and it's the intent which is so disturbing.

Quote from Electrik Kar :

Skepticgate?!

I've proposed an alternative: "Climategate II - Return Of The Paragraph"

I really find Eli Rabett annoying when he talks in the third person. Makes him read like he's slimey, weird and not to be trusted. So does the shite he writes.

It looks like Wegman did copy from Wiki, although it's also possible that Wiki copied from Wegman. At the moment, it's not possible to be sure because the origination edit dates on Wiki are so close to the period when Wegman was forming and publishing his report, but it does look like Wegman's assistant, Said, failed to cite Wiki and treated it as "common knowledge", which would have exempted the obligation to cite the source.

I think this is an oversight by Wegman, basically. Even Mashey notes that there are references in Wegman's bibliography that don't feature as citations in the report. That's a failure on Mashey's part to understand the purpose and content of a bibliography, but since Wegman was so willing to point to all the different papers and books he'd read in forming his report, it seems odd that he'd then purposely try to pass off such common and widely material as Wiki as his own original research. That argument's not convincing to me.

Bottom line, though, there's a problem with the Wegman report. But it's by-the-by. Nobody's questioning Wegman's criticism of Mann's short-centred PCA, so all this warmist arm-waving just boils down to silly diversionary crap.

I'd laugh if Wiki's editor turned out to be Said, Wegman or one of his students

I feel tired thinking about this. (edit: that would be hilarious though)


PS, I'm a little disappointed in Keith atm, and his handling of Watts on this story. I have to say it feels very much as though Keith's looking to forge a place for himself in some brave new unclaimed middleground here, as a shining beacon of balance and reason- but it all feels very artificial to me. He's simply waiting for Anthony to trip up, there's no leeway or goodwill there at all. Disappointing because I could have seen them in cooperation rather than as enemies, but I can see that this is the way Keith wants it. He needs to be enemies with Anthony, as with Romm- but his reasoning is bogus. I'm not simply going to disagree with Romm for being Romm, or Anthony for being Anthony. Attack the argument, not the person- as we often say. Your post on CAS about tribalism not being a badge of honour, I totally agree with. Keith seems to not want to recognise that WUWT has always had an open door policy towards other sides of the argument, it is hardly Anthony's fault that there have been very few takers willing to argue things away from the comforts of a home crowd. That's just the way it's been. Hopefully Keith can help set this stage now, but Anthony really got there first, imo. It was simply an unused service.

I'm also rather frustrated by Keith's positioning. He's previously declared Watts and Romm two sides of the same coin, and he seems unwilling to let that go. I think he's wrong - Romm is certainly very left-wing, and Watts is definitely more right-wing, but the difference is in the extremities. Watts strives for balance, Romm makes absolutely no effort whatsoever to give any ground. Definitely not the same coin.

I mostly find myself agreeing with Tom Fuller on the climate players and their activities. I don't agree with his view of AGW, though.

Keith should know about the climate scientists not wanting to leave the security of their own ranches.. Tobis keeps threatening to leave C-a-S and not come back, simply when he's been challenged on fundamental scientific issues! I've seen him pull that threat 3 times, so far, and the third time looks like he's sticking with it. He's not posted for a while. Gavin tried interacting, but didn't enjoy not being able to edit out or Fisk to death other peoples' views. Tim Lambert.. no prizes for guessing how I feel about him

I'm pretty sure I've upset Anthony on Keith's blog with my badge of honour comment. I fired that at both Keith and Anthony, but I suspect Anthony's taken it more to heart. I do respect Anthony an immense amount, but a good friend is the one that is willing to tell you when you stink.

I'm not sure where Keith is trying to position himself. He is a well-respected journalist with tremendous reach. I remember being somewhat in awe of Keith's blog when I first visited, because he's able to draw such key people into the debate. I think he needs to grab himself a bit of perspective, drop the coin meme and get back to what he does well, which is to be far more topical and much less ad hominem.

Quote from SamH :

I mostly find myself agreeing with Tom Fuller on the climate players and their activities.

Yep. I was going to write as a PS how much I've been enjoying Tom's posts of late.

Quote :

Tim Lambert.. no prizes for guessing how I feel about him

Heh. For some strange reason I haven't run into him much at all, apart from recently. He did leave one hilarious comment under one of Keith's articles, the 'Keith Kloor Action Figure' one. He gets a certain amount of respect from me simply by that one post!

Quote :

I suspect Anthony's taken it more to heart. I do respect Anthony an immense amount, but a good friend is the one that is willing to tell you when you stink.

Yeah, I dunno. He seems let down by people posting at Keiths. I don't know how much that feeling ties directly to your post. It didn't read to me that you were targeting anyone in particular, and it was a good point. I wish more people would heed your words, Sam! (edit: I guess there's not point in denying it, Anthony has had a few slips in quality lately. There's not much you can really do when he goes and runs an article on 'the bias of liberal media'. Ouch.).

Quote :

drop the coin meme and get back to what he does well, which is to be far more topical and much less ad hominem.

Exactomondo.

Quote :

I'm not sure where Keith is trying to position himself.

I'm too busy to take this up on Keith's blog and deal with replys, but what do you make of this comment of Keiths just now..

Quote :

Here’s a clever way to put things:
“It seems that Climategate has met its karmic match: Skepticgate.”

This doesn't strike me as particularly 'clever'.

I agree with you, I didn't think it was exactly clever. I think Keith is confusing "clever" with "smug". But to be smug, it would have to be right.

The Wegman issue, as I've pointed out at length on Keith's and elsewhere, is not a cornerstone of scepticism. While its statistical analysis serves as a useful affirmation of McIntyre's work, it's not alone in affirming his work and it's not pivotal to the debate. The matters of "unprecedented warming", and the hockey stick handle, which are undermined by evidence in the Climategate emails, most certainly are central to the debate.

Once again Keith is seeing two sides of the same coin while simultaneously failing to take into consideration proportions of extremes.

[edit] In fact I think I should point this out to Keith.

No offense but is this about climate change or about talking about people behind their backs?

Because that's what has happened here over the last 10 pages or so.

LOL! Hmm.. well, we've sort of got our own aggregated climate news service going on now! Prolly Electrik Kar and I should be PMing, but I think a few other people might be (at least, I hope) interested in following along.

So.. here's the latest news:

Michael Mann, the guy who created the "hockey stick", has an Op Ed in the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ ... 0/07/AR2010100705484.html

Willis Eschenbach, one of my favourite, most incisive writers on climate issues, writes this open letter to Mann, in response, at WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201 ... etter-to-dr-michael-mann/

Hehe, ok.

Most of this goes straight over my head anyway (I do know that the global warming is not nearly as bad as it's made out to be, though) but being the forum whore that I am, I try to read every new post so stumbled upon these as well.

Quote from SamH :

Willis Eschenbach, one of my favourite, most incisive writers on climate issues

Willis is great. Always a pleasure. In Australian politics the Democrat party has a slogan... 'Keeping the Bastards Honest'. That's Willis.

PS, did you see the post at WUWT on the geo-engineering approach to cooling the globe that proposes creating bubbles in sea water to act as tiny mirrors?

Quote :

In an effort to curb global warming, scientists have proposed everything from launching sunlight-blocking dust into the stratosphere to boosting the number of carbon-sucking algae in the oceans. Now, a Harvard University physicist has come up with a new way to cool parts of the planet: pump vast swarms of tiny bubbles into the sea to increase its reflectivity and lower water temperatures. “Since water covers most of the earth, don’t dim the sun,” says the scientist, Russell Seitz, speaking from an international meeting on geoengineering research here. “Brighten the water.” Natural bubbles already brighten turbulent seas and provide a luster known as “undershine” below the ocean’s surface. But these bubbles only lightly brighten the planet, contributing less than one-tenth of 1% of Earth’s reflectivity, or albedo. What Seitz imagines is pumping even smaller bubbles, about one-five-hundredth of a millimeter in diameter, into the sea. Such “microbubbles” are essentially “mirrors made of air,” says Seitz, and they might be created off boats by using devices that mix water supercharged with compressed air into swirling jets of water.

Of course, Willis had a very straight forward answer for all this...

Quote :

Having worked as a commercial fisherman and done sailboat deliveries, I know that the ocean is … well … huge beyond belief. So, let’s do some back of the envelope calculations …
Boat going 10 m/sec = 20 knots.
Spreads bubbles in a swath 10 metres wide.
We’ll say we have one hundred bubble boats.
That’s 10,000 square metres bubbleized per second.
Area of the world’s oceans is 360,000,000,000,000 square metres.
Time to bubbleize say half of the oceans is 17,892,270,924 seconds, or
298,204,515 minutes, or
4,970,075 hours, or
207,086 days, or only
5,874 years.
So a fleet of only a hundred thousand boats could get the job done in five point nine years. Of course, the bubbles will all disperse in say a month (probably more like a week or even a day, but I’m a generous man), so we’ll need 140 times that many boats to maintain the bubbles.
So all we need is 14 million boats. And a thousand windmills. Oh, and the fuel for the boats. Let’s see, a boat going 20 knots might burn five gallons of fuel per hour, 14 million boats, that’s 70 million gallons of fuel an hour at a cost of three bucks a gallon, that’s a constant running cost of $210,000,000 per hour forever, or
$5 billion dollars per day, or
$1.8 trillion dollars per year in perpetuity.
Ooops, forgot the crew’s wages, say four crewpersons per boat, that’s a work force of 52 million men and women. Say they’re each getting $40k per year because of the long hours and the time away from home. That’s another $2 trillion dollars per year. And not counting the cost of the boats. And not counting the maintenance on the boats and the machinery.


Now we just need the grant money …

Haha.


PS, Zeug. Yep, you called it. I'm not in the habit of sending PM's, I just find it easier to post directly on the forum. I'll try and cut back on too much idle chatter.

Amazing. There has to be more to this skepticgate thing than the stuff that Steve M's commented on so far, otherwise this Mashey character has been simply wasting his life...

Just thought people may like an update to the current propoganda relating to climate change.
Although, it looks like the TSA are doing their best to prevent Americans from flying, that will certainly lead to a reduction in the belief that all people may travel. Peasants ( possibly peons in the Americas ) need to learn to stay put. The feudal system doesn't support freedom of travel. !

"Global warming is now such a serious threat to mankind that climate change experts are calling for Second World War-style rationing in rich countries to bring down carbon emissions.
This would mean a drastic change in lifestyles for many people in countries like Britain as everyone will have to buy less ‘carbon intensive’ goods and services such as long haul flights and fuel hungry cars.
Prof Anderson admitted it “would not be easy” to persuade people to reduce their consumption of goods
He said politicians should consider a rationing system similar to the one introduced during the last “time of crisis” in the 1930s and 40s.
This could mean a limit on electricity so people are forced to turn the heating down, turn off the lights and replace old electrical goods like huge fridges with more efficient models. Food that has travelled from abroad may be limited and goods that require a lot of energy to manufacture.
“The Second World War and the concept of rationing is something we need to seriously consider if we are to address the scale of the problem we face,” he said.
Prof Anderson insisted that halting growth in the rich world does not necessarily mean a recession or a worse lifestyle, it just means making adjustments in everyday life such as using public transport and wearing a sweater rather than turning on the heating"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear ... g-in-developed-world.html

Haven't been following latest climate news for awhile, but here's something fun...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... p;feature=player_embedded



According to UAH (UAH refers to satellite temperature data analysis from the University of Alabama in Huntsville), 2010 and 1998 are basically tied for warmest year, atm.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/20 ... rature-update-0-38-deg-c/

Steve McIntrye on Climategate and Wikileaks

http://climateaudit.org/2010/11/30/assange-on-climategate/

Seeing as how both Europe and America are currently enjoying their coldest winters on record (In Britain, the coldest December since 1659), I thought you should all understand that it's due to global warming http://www.independent.co.uk/n ... y-scientists-2168418.html

That's right, and naturally the only way to 'Save the Planet' tm is to pay your carbon tax, after all, only Al Gore can save you.

( If anyone is able to clearly and consisely explain how giving a potentially huge sum of money to bankers and traders is going to save the planet (and give themselves huge bonus's) I'd love to hear the explination)
You don't need to include an explination regarding the bonus's !

Carbon Trading

Second, the proposed solution to global warming - cap and trade - is a scam. Specifically:

* The economists who invented cap-and-trade say that it won't work for global warming

* Many environmentalists say that carbon trading won't effectively reduce carbon emissions

* Our bailout buddies over at Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and the other Wall Street behemoths are buying heavily into carbon trading (see this, this, this, this, this and this). As University of Maryland professor economics professor and former Chief Economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission Peter Morici writes:

Obama must ensure that the banks use the trillions of dollars in federal bailout assistance to renegotiate mortgages and make new loans to worthy homebuyers and businesses. Obama must make certain that banks do not continue to squander federal largess by padding executive bonuses, acquiring other banks and pursuing new high-return, high-risk lines of businesses in merger activity, carbon trading and complex derivatives. Industry leaders like Citigroup have announced plans to move in those directions. Many of these bankers enjoyed influence in and contributed generously to the Obama campaign. Now it remains to be seen if a President Obama can stand up to these same bankers and persuade or compel them to act responsibly.

In other words, the same companies that made billions off of derivatives and other scams and are now getting bailed out on your dime are going to make billions from carbon trading.
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22523

Have I ever agreed with you before? Points to you.

Best way to make sure something is stupid: wait for you two to agree it makes sense.

Best way to find self aggrandizing and arrogant posts ^^^

How do you describe cap and trade in your own words?

Quote from Racer X NZ :

Seeing as how both Europe and America are currently enjoying their coldest winters on record (In Britain, the coldest December since 1659), I thought you should all understand that it's due to global warming http://www.independent.co.uk/n ... y-scientists-2168418.html

That's right, and naturally the only way to 'Save the Planet' tm is to pay your carbon tax, after all, only Al Gore can save you.

( If anyone is able to clearly and consisely explain how giving a potentially huge sum of money to bankers and traders is going to save the planet (and give themselves huge bonus's) I'd love to hear the explination)
You don't need to include an explination regarding the bonus's !

Carbon Trading

Second, the proposed solution to global warming - cap and trade - is a scam. Specifically:

* The economists who invented cap-and-trade say that it won't work for global warming

* Many environmentalists say that carbon trading won't effectively reduce carbon emissions

* Our bailout buddies over at Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and the other Wall Street behemoths are buying heavily into carbon trading (see this, this, this, this, this and this). As University of Maryland professor economics professor and former Chief Economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission Peter Morici writes:

Obama must ensure that the banks use the trillions of dollars in federal bailout assistance to renegotiate mortgages and make new loans to worthy homebuyers and businesses. Obama must make certain that banks do not continue to squander federal largess by padding executive bonuses, acquiring other banks and pursuing new high-return, high-risk lines of businesses in merger activity, carbon trading and complex derivatives. Industry leaders like Citigroup have announced plans to move in those directions. Many of these bankers enjoyed influence in and contributed generously to the Obama campaign. Now it remains to be seen if a President Obama can stand up to these same bankers and persuade or compel them to act responsibly.

In other words, the same companies that made billions off of derivatives and other scams and are now getting bailed out on your dime are going to make billions from carbon trading.
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22523

No offence, but the whole damn world is a conspiracy in your eyes.

I live, I get payed for the work I do, and even if I have to give away half of my income I'd still be happy. I belive it's for something better, that I actually contribute with something when i pay various fees and taxes.

If not, I don't care.

For the enviroment it's natural variations, but I belive man has made a impact on this. We have disturbed the natural cyclus, and the outcome we don't know yet.