Oops....Busted

His work has been disputed since 2003....by many climatologists, actual experts in this field....

BTW- What is a Climatologist? How does that differ than a Weatherman, with a few more letters after his name? How long has the position been available for accreditation? I, for one, would rather trust Geologists, and the like, for their opinion. They have been around a lot longer, and have studied data since the early 1800's, and have observed and recorded data that have been reportable for many centuries, not decades….Have you bothered to research any opposing views? Would you look into some Glacial Scientist links, or AstroPhysics/ GeoPhysical links? How about Solar Scientists, or Oceanographers that research the deep water heat sinks , and currents like the Gulf Stream? How about Volcanologists, that have found that sub sea eruptions in Greenland have been responsible for localized ice loss, not GW? How about Ice Core data , (from Geologists, again), going back a lot longer than the Hansen 1970's data. How about the fraud linked to Global temperature recordings? Why have they been manipulated over the course of 20 years? Why is the satellite data, which is unlikely to be manipulated, showing much different recordings than the Earth based sites (able to be place near heat sinks , such as cities etc.)? I am not saying you are wrong….There is probably a lot of truth in your posts , but not to research the other side of your opinion is a failure to observe the rules of Debate…You must be able to take the other side and hold and make that viewpoint. To do that , you MUST research and look at the area from a Objective, rather than Subjective viewpoint. Not to do so means that you have either chosen not to research, or are holding onto a position tenaciously out of stubbornness. I have been accused of the same, FYI…Mac

A weatherman is to a climatologist as is an electrician is to a computer expert....that seems rather clumsy,,,,anyway you get the idea...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_climatology

They are two separate disciplines and can't be compared. A Weatherman must produce reliable, consistant results to remain employed. A Climatologist, relies on funding grants, his product does not have to be verifiable. And as we have discovered, it can even be fraudulent.

Then there must be a fast turnover in weatherman positions....I could do that....

OK, but I would not a climatologist near my computer or my house wiring.

Depending on the weatherman I might allow him to peek at my computer and/or house wiring, because he probably has education and some common sense to boot!

Every climatologist (mainly atmospheric chemists) I ever spoke with about the models say, "it is too complicated for you to understand, as there are literally hundreds if not thousands of chemical reactions in the models, along with all the physico-chemical energy transfer parameters, etc. ad nauseum. No, you could never understand all that." Well, actually I do have an advanced degree in physical chemistry, and did post-doctoral research on chaos in analytical spectroscopy systems, so yes I can.

In fact, one of my research mentors had studied with Rowland and Molina before they published on ozone depletion in the stratosphere, due to reactions branched by Cl atom donors (chlorofluorocarbons). Here is the preface to the wikipedia article:

"This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please help improve this article to make it understandable to non-experts, without removing the technical details. The talk page may contain suggestio" --See what I mean?

This stuff is not all that hard, some basic understanding of chemical kinetics, the steady-state assumption in reactive intermediates, and basic ordinary differential equations will help you muddle through.

As to the "Global global climate model" - that thing truly is a monster, and the apparent effect of changing incrementally any one of the parameters is completely opaque. Nothing is straightforward in a model where is nearly takes a supercomputer just to include all the models' parameters, much less to run the thing in a simulation.

My retort to all these fellows: "So this means you can't possibly understand what you are doing either." Most of them I have found to be the most egocentric people I have ever met, with the exclusion of a few sociopaths mentioned in my time as a civilian working for law enforcement. Megalomaniac is a good descriptive term, not particularly pointing at any one person, as when I point, there can always be fingers pointing back at me (that are my own). I try to remain my humble, open-minded self. Remember that at one time, I was probably as keen on "saving the environment" as anyone out there, and I had drank all the pseudo-scientific Kool-Aid being offered without really doing my own fact checking. Those days are OVER.

The more facts I check on any number of fronts, the more revelation I receive, the more open minded I feel I am becoming, and the more I see. One of the main things I see is that when even a good scientist has a vested interest in his research succeeding, there is a moral and ethical dilemma to be faced. I understand the term "normalization", and in its most pure sense is a good thing to allow realistic on-scale comparisons of data, but normalization always has to assume a benchmark, in some cased there are valid arguments for the establishment of such a standardized point, but in others, the benchmark seems to have no foundation whatsoever. Be wary of data that seems to be force-fit to a model, instead the model should be adjusted to include all valid data from a similar class of instruments all calibrated by the same protocol.

And if everybody wasn't flapping their yaps so much about global warming maybe it would go away. Too much HOT air in this subject. I am cutting my losses and getting out of this topic early, and going back to my -21 degree weather. Boy its hot out there. Maybe I'll go and buy a new snow suit for spring.

You're making the same mistake that many casual observers and most people in the denial camp do.

You are confusing your weather with world climate. I'd explain the difference, but why bother?

It's time to find a new way to waste time.

Your post reminds me of an old saying : The Pessimist complains that the wind is too strong; The Optimist feels that it should slow down shortly; The Realist adjusts his sails….

BTW---Where is the karamat these days? Did Green Peace take him out with a stolen harpoon?

On the thread of (where have some of the people gone) they have said he left voluntarily. I am not sure you might try to pm him

Lyn, you mighty want to explain the contraption "world climate".

Be interested to see what this actually means!

Why bother? Because you could actually start thinking about some of the words that the propaganda has put in your mouth.

Have fun!

"The Period Of No Global Warming Will Soon Be Longer Than the Period of Actual Global Warming"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2014/02/24/the-period-of-no-global-warming-will-soon-be-longer-than-the-period-of-actual-global-warming/

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/20/massive-tampering-with-temperatures-in-south-america/

Another non-expert heard from,

"I am Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute, Senior Advisor for Entitlement Reform and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation, General Counsel for the American Civil Rights Union, and Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis. I served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under President George H.W. Bush. I am a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, and the author most recently of America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb (New York: Harper Collins, 2011). I write about new, cutting edge ideas regarding public policy, particularly concerning economics.

Contact Peter Ferrara"
I don't see anything about any expertise in climate science listed here in the author's biography...but I do see a lot of "causes"....

At least he can read (evidently). At least he can compose a coherent thought (evidently). I don't have an axe to grind here, and I already know what I believe, and what will happen in the next few years.

But don't sit there and fool yourself into thinking you or anyone you know will be safe from what the government will do to you in the name of "protecting you". Remember this when they come take you to the FEMA camps. (just kidding).

Hell why have any freedoms left at all? They force everything else down our throats already. They just aren't going to get away with forcing "it" down my throat, and not have me at least wrestle with them, and make loud grunty noises, and try to spit it out. It is the Scot in me that knows we're *******ed, but it is also the Scot in me that wants to fight it anyway.

All of us with Scots blood are just a little hardheaded, stubborn, and cantankerous. The Irish part of me just makes me that much meaner, with a little bit of German before we were imported to the states, then they added the American Indian, Cherokee I do believe. That just makes me that much tougher to deal with when someone tries to take something away from me. I do not give up easily, I guess that makes me a Hines 57 mutt. But I really enjoy being the adversarial one in the mix. I am just like an old pit bull I wont let loose until I am good and ready or dead, they have tried that before they just haven't succeeded at it yet.

Amen Brother - we almost appear as cousins in lineage. I doubt you would really claim me as kin, though.

"WHY NOT"!!!! We are all brothers by different mothers, as far as I see it every man woman or child is related in some way or another. They can all say what they want but that is my story and I'm sticking to it. Besides I have family in Oklahoma distant but still blood relatives you never know where blood lines cross or go to.

True that! May your globe(s) remain warm, your beer cold, and your hunting good wherever you are with that.

I love Okies (mostly to make fun of them, and be made fun of in return), but that truly is a remarkable place in the world. My dad was raised on an orphanage in Oklahoma, a Masonic Home. See, Masons are not all bad, now are they?

If people think I am not concerned about man-caused climate change (or other) if it were related in any way to "greenhouse gas emissions", I for one have advocated seriously for wind power, solar power, aquaculture (algae mainly), safer forms of nuclear energy utilization, and all manner of energy conserving tactics. I find there is a selective aural neuropathy in the general public, and especially some close colleagues when I am speaking about most of these things. Rarely I do find a "friend" who simply hears me out, then offers his kind suggestions. Salute to that rare breed.

Well then Sir you are more alike to me then you know. I am a big supporter of solar, wind, led lighting and high efficiency building practice.As soon as the weather breaks this spring we are going to install close to 100 amorous panels on the back fence line, about 15 feet in the air to keep the critters off of them. They will go with the 20 panels that are already up to see if the orientation would work. And I was correct they receive almost 80% of the available sun in my latitude that is available. Plus no one sees them unless they are in the backyard. And if anyone is in my back yard they are up to skulduggery, that warrants maximum response. I am working on trying to set up a solar hot water heater as well. In the winter it is not much of a problem as we have a wood heater that I set up to also heat water for domestic hot water and to heat water for the driveways to keep them clear getting too old to shovel snow, I don't feel like a heart attack is warranted just for the fun of shoveling snow. This summer I am working on a better battery bank trying to get away from the lead acid batteries and switch over to nickel iron for longer service life. They are not as power intensive as lead or lithium, but they will outlast them by 70 to 80 years. My great grand kids will still be using them long after I am gone.

Amorous? Won't they maybe breed on you and mess up your array?

Hahaha

Darn spell check

It should have read Amorphous

somehow my mind drifted to alley cats in late February to early March. Lots of meeeeowing, and high-pitched rrrrraaaarrrrr! Now that the conversation has once again bottomed out, I will leave it right there.

I found this article interesting with regard to public perception of climate change and the polarization of opinion on the subject. The surprising conclusion was that the more educated the individual was on the subject, the more polarized they were on the debate with an essentially 50-50 split among those polled.

From the linked article, "Kahan dismissed as "ridiculous" the suggestion that the study implies there is no value in climate education. "We need even more research on how to communicate climate science effectively, so people can make informed individual and collective decisions."

My opinion is that the politicalization of the subject has caused the vast majority of the polarization. If the topic was apolitical we would have seen far more valuable science and far less polarization on the subject.

"Kahan dismissed as "ridiculous" the suggestion that the study implies there is no value in climate education. "We need even more research on how to communicate climate science effectively, so people can make informed individual and collective decisions."

Education is one thing, and must always and foremost be factual in nature, with plenty of verifiable data from that which is available on both sides of the debate. Indoctrination as a substitute for education is nothing more than internalization of state-imposed religion which the "worship of nature", while denying the freedom to practice one's religion (to worship a transcendent higher being or power than nature) as a means of controlling each individual in the "collective".

It makes fools of us all to deny that a higher power exists, because a fool says to himself "There is no God." Of course, there have been times when the situation was reversed and not too far off in the past, when the free-thinker was persecuted for not falling into lock-stop with religious dogma - that also denies the authority of the higher power, and simply usurps authority and power by man. There are plenty around who would like to see mankind stumble back into the dark - ISIS not being the least of them.

That is precisely why the mature, cool-headed group that we are should demand more of our colleagues, that every scientist needs to exert the code of ethics that an engineer takes to himself and publicly to work in a way that does no harm to others by intent, by omission, or by cutting corners. Scientists AND engineers need to re-dedicate themselves to the highest standards (me especially), to make sure that we produce the best machine, the best data, the best model, or the best materials we are capable of producing, and to do all of it in the most timely, appropriate, reliable manner.

Total and complete propaganization of half-truths and outright lies should be punishable in legal court at this point. Then maybe some of the "crap" would stop. This whole country has diarrhea of the mouth, and constipation of the brain. This leads to a myriad of related societal ailments.

You wrote, "Total and complete propaganization of half-truths and outright lies should be punishable in legal court at this point. Then maybe some of the "crap" would stop."

I don't want any legislation to do that. It would be far more effective if the people simply stop patronizing the organizations that publish that "crap" as you call it.

If people stopped paying attention to institutions that did that, then the "crap" would stop. Q.E.D.

I found this article much more balanced on the funding.

The funding took place over the course of 14 years. What is not listed is the amount of funding that came from other sources (if any) that were not conservatively based. It would be nice to see the total picture of his funding to get a better understanding of the truth. Hopefully the investigative committee will be impartial and give us the real story.

Unfortunately, you won't get the real story from agenda based reporting such as Mother Jone, New York Time, Boston Globe, or even Fox News (Fair & Balanced?) as they are lightning quick to omit information that does not serve their ends.

The initial charge in regards to Soon's funding was initiated by Greenpeace, which is not exactly an impartial organization themselves. They may be right, or even partially right, but their motives are no less biased than any of the other rags that have picked up this story and run wild with it.

Before we can draw conclusions on the degree of culpability of Wei-Hock Soon it would seem prudent to let investigations proceed instead of turning this into the climate change version of the Ferguson police shooting witch hunt - also fanned by agenda based reporters, editors, and even publicly elected officials.

Follow the money is a correct saying if you want to know what is really going on. Before Al G. started his campaign on global warming he was worth 1 million, after a few years 100 million. One thing is for sure, they want to take more money from us in the form of taxes for this so called global warming.

for anyone interested, go to Project Avalon, and log into the "Money Trail" thread--A good look at the Trusts (Pew, Rockefeller, Packard, Gates, Hewlett,) etc, as well as the lists and assets of the Not-For-Profit, Enviro Groups, and how all that money gets moved around, and how certain Politicians get the same money they get lobbied for….

Doing the right thing is not necessarily a profitless endeavor....In a perfect world it would be the most profitable...Being well paid to do something you enjoy is the American dream....on the other hand working for a cause without or with little compensation is usually a sign of a "true believer" , which can be the most dangerous of the radical fringe....So the money trail is not definitive for truth seeking....it's when somebody lies about it that draws concern.....

Well in any case to know how to and how much we can influence the planetary systems of climate, seems in the end a good thing to know...and at the very least this controversy drives the quest for knowledge forward, and that in the end can only be a good thing....

As long as they keep the "taint" out of the soup.

You are absolutely correct. Buried in the IPCC papers are accurate and important information. What is disseminated to the public are the Political opinions, written by Politicians, World leaders of underdeveloped countries , looking for money, etc. As an aside, I have been recently made aware of the number of unchecked above ground, and underground Global Coal fires, that by themselves maybe causing a tremendous amount of unchecked pollution and CO2 / methane gas releases. Must look further…Mac

I agree.

The mindset that if it's worth considering or doing somebody would have already commissioned it rankles.