Trying to use Science to spin a political agenda!

[You Can Call Me Ray]

In the year that I have been gone (self-imposed sabbatical from forum posting), we have seen many developments that show, indeed, that man-made global warming is not just a hoax, but a political scam.

The fact that those behind the scams cannot address the reality laid bare in the Climategate I and II releases should make it even more apparent what is going on. But beyond the political shenanigans and coverups of highly UNscientific behavior by anointed AGW scientists, what we have that indicts AGW as a falsehood more completely is: HARD, FAST DATA.

Mann's hockey stick has been falsified by global temp data, and continues to be falsified as time accrues.
Ray

[Zep Tepi]

Hey Ray, very good to see you

There have been a few programmes on the tv over here which have attempted to show that the deniers have it all wrong. There is one tv personality on the BBC, Professor Brian Cox, who even goes so far as to call all of those people "nobbers".

One of the most hard hitting programs included a visit to Nasa, where one of the scientists said the reality just cannot be denied and to do so was beyond the pale (or words to that effect).

So, where do we stand?!

Cheers,
Steve

[You Can Call Me Ray]

Hey Ray, very good to see you

Great to be back, Zep! Good to "see" you too!

There have been a few programmes on the tv over here which have attempted to show that the deniers have it all wrong. There is one tv personality on the BBC, Professor Brian Cox, who even goes so far as to call all of those people "nobbers".

Well, last time I checked the scientific method, it didn't include calling people who question a claim derogatory names! Know Prof Cox from his Discovery Channel series. Would be interested if he did more than his pop-sciy stuff he does on his shows, for instance talking about claims based on MODELS (which admittedly do not capture anywhere near the non-linear and MIMO complexity of the earth climate) rather than claims based on evidence and methods which are open to all to review and repeat (those damned UEA CRU guys who just don't think they should release all their raw data, nor all their methods such that people can reproduce/validate what they did).

But beyond Prof Cox, the Climategate II set of releases did have a juicy little tidbit in there that should call into question just how impartial the BBC can be in presenting this issue:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/27/c ... t-the-bbc/

The new emails reveal that not only was the CMEP (RH: AGW seminars held at the BBC at request of UEA) being sponsored by the Tyndall Centre (UEA) to promote its agenda in the media, but at the same Roger Harrabin was on the Advisory board of the Tyndall Centre! (from 2002 until at least the end of 2005)

and then the actual gem from the Climategate II email treasure trove:

The BBC environment/science team clearly felt more aligned with the climate scientists at UEA, in 2004 Alex Kirby wrote to Phil Jones, making it quite clear his contempt for ‘sceptics (ie loonies) at a time when the BBC as a whole seems to try to have some impartiality for ‘balance’ but it is clearly failing.

“Yes, glad you stopped this — I was sent it too, and decided to
spike it without more ado as pure stream-of-consciousness rubbish.

I can well understand your unhappiness at our running the other piece.

But we are constantly being savaged by the loonies for not giving them any coverage at all, especially as you say with the COP in the offing, and being the objective impartial (ho ho) BBC that we are, there is an expectation in some quarters that we will every now and then let them
say something.

I hope though that the weight of our coverage makes it clear that we think they are talking through their hats” (email 4894)

One of the most hard hitting programs included a visit to Nasa, where one of the scientists said the reality just cannot be denied and to do so was beyond the pale (or words to that effect).

Yes, I see lots of talking heads for the AGW crowd, but very little (if any) review of any sort of real evidence (not models) which shows not ONLY that the globe has warmed, on average, over the past 100 years, but also the more important evidence that proves mankind's CO2 is the primary culprit. As we know, talk is cheap, but evidence is not.

So, where do we stand?!

Well, I do not think anyone would argue with the fact that CO2 content has continued to rise in the atmosphere for the entire 2000-2010 decade. But what has NOT happened in concert with that is the temperature anomaly has NOT risen. In fact, it has remained statistically flat:



And then of course there is the recent paper (which includes authors from the UK MET and NASA themselves) which report on the solar cycle 25 predictions:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... again.html

According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.

So you tell me...where do YOU think we stand?

Ray

[Tim Hebert]

Ray, great to see you back!

Anecdotal, froze my butt off in the 1970s and 1980s (Montana, N. Dakota) then milder winters in the 1990s. Now in the 2000s, back to the same winter patterns of frigid temps and heavy snow falls. Cyclic patterns that are more or less normal for a given short period of time of measurements? At least in the margins of error or standard statistical deviations.

On another note, I recall that you were working on a program that utilized blimps as a means of carrying cargo. Are you still involved with that effort? If so, has prototypes been tested in different parts of the country, say Wyoming and Nebraska?

Tim

[You Can Call Me Ray]

Hi Tim,

Ray, great to see you back!

Thanks for that!

Anecdotal, froze my butt off in the 1970s and 1980s (Montana, N. Dakota) then milder winters in the 1990s. Now in the 2000s, back to the same winter patterns of frigid temps and heavy snow falls. Cyclic patterns that are more or less normal for a given short period of time of measurements? At least in the margins of error or standard statistical deviations.

Yep. Growing up in Cleveland in the 60s and 70s we got plenty of cold and snowy days. Seems all the blizzards came off Lake Erie at 4AM, just as I was out delivering on my morning paper route. Then in the 80s and 90s, the winters quieted down again. Last few years they came back with a fury, and this is the odd year out in Cleveland, but certainly not over in Europe. It is just such a crock to say "the science is settled" about humans causing any given warming cycle. That is not how science works, and moreover there is no factual evidence (models are not factual evidence, they are just models) to prove mankind or even CO2 caused the sleight warming we have had over the past 50 years. OK, better stop there...I could go on and on....as I have in this thread!

On another note, I recall that you were working on a program that utilized blimps as a means of carrying cargo. Are you still involved with that effort? If so, has prototypes been tested in different parts of the country, say Wyoming and Nebraska?

Still working it (LEMV). Still trying to get the first vehicle's first flight off. Shouldn't say a whole lot more, as far as specifics go. But the Army has said their plan is to send it to Afghanistan theater to be the long endurance "unblinking eye in the sky".

Ray

[Puppetburglar]

Welcome back, Ray! Sans politics, I always find your posts seriously enlightening. That said, I find no one's poly opinions enlightening, and that is why I eschew even the temptation of my own. Alas, science, including engineering, has made pustules of postulates when the reach could trample the courts, in courting the vision of truth, and this from every contingency. But the dumb must be protected from everything, including possibility, to make way for possibility. The mind is worth so much more than mere opinion, I always say. Alas, EVERYONE looks at me as if I'm mad. There is no escaping self interest, even in the highest wink of meditation, as you are required to be there to be... That said, when you last left us, your barbs at Danno were suddenly abated by a reference to an experience, on Dan's part, that quelled the mutual animus, and silenced a good thread. Any comment as to what ensued?

[ryguy]

Welcome back Ray.

I also enjoy reading your "reports" on the current state of global warming science. It's always educational as well as entertaining (seeing how some of the sky-is-falling wingnuts play the science).

-Ryan