Global Warming Shenanigans..

[Dog of Orangebutt]

"The problem with climate skeptic scientists is almost all their work is not original, but rather derivitive. They do regression analysises of other studies, or meta-analysises of other studies, but as far as original content scientific studies, the record is almost completely absent of contributions by climate skeptic scientists." - Poley the FlatEarther

Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer......[Note: Theon joins many current and former NASA scientists in dissenting from man-made climate fears. A small sampling includes: Aerospace engineer and physicist Dr. Michael Griffin, the former top administrator of NASA, Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt, Award-winning NASA Astronaut and Physicist Walter Cunningham of NASA's Apollo 7, Chemist and Nuclear Engineer Robert DeFayette was formerly with NASA's Plum Brook Reactor, Hungarian Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA's Ames Research Center, Climatologist Dr. John Christy, Climatologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer, Atmospheric Scientist Ross Hays of NASA's Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility]

According to satellite data, the Earth has cooled since Gore’s film was released, Antarctic sea ice extent has grown to record levels, sea level rise has slowed, ocean temperatures have failed to warm, and more and more scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made climate fears as peer-reviewed studies continue to man-made counter warming fears

Wow all these NASA scientists are jumping ship....does Exxon Mobile have this much money???? Oh wait, they haven't taken any money from Mobile Exxon. Peer reviewed literature - there's lots of that!!! Unoriginal, derivative work...bullcrap - these aren't just studies of studies and I can cite lots of them.

Don't be the last one to leave town, Poley - let go of the political dogma and think for yourself....the co2 / global warming rave is over and only those agenda driven folks still trying to suck money out of this hoax will continue to hang on - isn't it interesting how Hansen and all these guys are ratcheting up the rhetoric? Why would they do that when the temperature actually show significant cooling last year?......but don't take my word for it - I've waited years for this - I can wait a few more!!!!!!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor-declares-himself-a-skeptic-says-hansen-embarrassed-nasa-was-never-muzzled/

[OBs Dogs Nutsack Flea]

That mutt Poley said there weren't any good peer reviewed studies...and the ones that were out there were just trying to pick apart pro co2 studies......and he's wrong. Here's a good one:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801175711.htm

The authors show that this mechanism explains all global temperature tendency changes and El Nino variability in the 20th century.

Title: A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts

Authors: Anastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson, and Sergey Kravtsov: Atmospheric Sciences Group, Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, U.S.A.

Now, the next time you decide to lick your nuts....how about giving me a warning!!!!

[Orangebutt]

This guys says that co2 didn't do crap compared to oscillations - What do those Belgians really know about anything except waffles anyway?

"Belgian weather institute (RMI) study dismisses role of CO2" http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail.aspx?artikelid=B18307176070801
(Translation)

Excerpt: "Brussels: CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. This is the conclusion of a comprehensive scientific study done by the Royal Meteorological Institute, which will be published this summer. The study does not state that CO2 plays no role in warming the earth. "But it can never play the decisive role that is currently attributed to it", climate scientist Luc Debontridder says. "Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it." said Luc Debontridder. "Every change in weather conditions is blamed on CO2. But the warm winters of the last few years (in Belgium) are simply due to the 'North-Atlantic Oscillation'. And this has absolutely nothing to do with CO2. (Belga) Translation provided by Theo van Daele

http://www.demorgen.be/dm/nl/nieuws/wetenschap/540607?wt.bron=homeArt2

Dog, if you like sleeping inside, you'll quit humping the ottoman...at least go for a ottowoman.....

[humbletx]

"The problem with climate skeptic scientists is almost all their work is not original, but rather derivitive. They do regression analysises of other studies, or meta-analysises of other studies, but as far as original content scientific studies, the record is almost completely absent of contributions by climate skeptic scientists." - Poley the FlatEarther

Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer......[Note: Theon joins many current and former NASA scientists in dissenting from man-made climate fears. A small sampling includes: Aerospace engineer and physicist Dr. Michael Griffin, the former top administrator of NASA, Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt, Award-winning NASA Astronaut and Physicist Walter Cunningham of NASA's Apollo 7, Chemist and Nuclear Engineer Robert DeFayette was formerly with NASA's Plum Brook Reactor, Hungarian Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA's Ames Research Center, Climatologist Dr. John Christy, Climatologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer, Atmospheric Scientist Ross Hays of NASA's Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility]

According to satellite data, the Earth has cooled since Gore’s film was released, Antarctic sea ice extent has grown to record levels, sea level rise has slowed, ocean temperatures have failed to warm, and more and more scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made climate fears as peer-reviewed studies continue to man-made counter warming fears

Wow all these NASA scientists are jumping ship....does Exxon Mobile have this much money???? Oh wait, they haven't taken any money from Mobile Exxon. Peer reviewed literature - there's lots of that!!! Unoriginal, derivative work...bullcrap - these aren't just studies of studies and I can cite lots of them.

Don't be the last one to leave town, Poley - let go of the political dogma and think for yourself....the co2 / global warming rave is over and only those agenda driven folks still trying to suck money out of this hoax will continue to hang on - isn't it interesting how Hansen and all these guys are ratcheting up the rhetoric? Why would they do that when the temperature actually show significant cooling last year?......but don't take my word for it - I've waited years for this - I can wait a few more!!!!!!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor-declares-himself-a-skeptic-says-hansen-embarrassed-nasa-was-never-muzzled/

Not to disturb this dog peein' event - but those are some NASAER'er to say the least - Hansen in particular.. Always seem to be agreein' to be disagree'n about everything.. Frekkin' weirdos all of'em.. In fact just a couple weeks ago down off S. Main (at one of those funny places with fences where they do research and all that mindless stuff - some of the NASAER'er were arguin' up a storm with some of the other pin heads over some dogsh*t concernin' tropical storms.. Hell some knucklehead suggested they load up and head off to Lipsticks and continue the discussion over drinks and dancin'...

FWIW - it was SUGGESTED the coolin' was in direct relationship to the decrease, since 2007, in the use of retail fuels in the US.

[Orangebutt]

as the co2 levels have continued to rise, but I'm not surprised those guys have a "love / hate" relationship.....

[Dog of Orangebutt]

I've always wondered if Chinese dogs have fleas and if there's really such a thing as a Dog Poo Gai Pan???? Any any rate, these asian dudes say that co2 isn't driving the climate nearly like Poley and his gang of Chicken Littles would say.....and it's peer reviewed stuff, where in 2007 they said temps would start dropping and viola in 2008 they did.

They report that “Despite the increasing trend of atmospheric CO2 concentration, the components IMF2, IMF3 and IMF4 of global temperature changes are all in falling” and that “the effect of greenhouse warming is deficient in counterchecking the natural cooling of global climate change in the coming 20 years. Consequently, we believe global climate changes will be in a trend of falling in the following 20 years.”

They were on a roll and they continued stating “The global climate warming is not solely affected by the CO2 greenhouse effect. The best example is temperature obviously cooling however atmospheric CO2 concentration is ascending from 1940s to 1970s. Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate changes is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated. It is high time to re-consider the global climate changes.”

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/03/16/the-coming-global-cooling/

[OBs Dogs Nutsack Flea]

These crazy japs are at it again. First they sink the Arizona and now they are dogging UN theories.....I think they just hate the world. In the most telling part of this article:

Dr Maruyama said many scientists were doubtful about man-made climate-change theory, but did not want to risk their funding from the government or bad publicity from the mass media, which he said was leading society in the wrong direction.

But the rest is worth reading as well:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25182520-2703,00.html

Hey dog, I'm having a Ben Gay party next week....too bad for you!!!!!

[humbletx]

as the co2 levels have continued to rise, but I'm not surprised those guys have a "love / hate" relationship.....

I'm tellin' ya those as some crazy ass educmucated mofo's.. Get'em started talking about carbon - and they go bugassedmuthfrekking crazy..

FWIW the boys in San Antone at the recent NPRA wingding yapped about cooling and fuels - of course those good ole boys talk sh*t all the time..

[OBs Dogs Nutsack Flea]

I think it's going to take the public ten years just to get the "co2 is the devil" mojo out of their brains.

I am just amazed at how the doomsayers have really amped up their bullshit since it's been shown that temps are dropping. I love the ones that say that 2008 was still one of the ten warmest years in the last 100 so the fact that it's dropping doesn't mean anything, like the temps would just up and fall a couple of degress in one year. Now THAT would scare the shit out of me - regardless of which direction it went......

[ZippyVol]

I think it's going to take the public ten years just to get the "co2 is the devil" mojo out of their brains.



They dont really take it out of their brains...they replace it with something else. Trading one hysteria for another.

The truth is, this particular hysteria is more a replacement for the Y2K scam than a replacement for Ice Age hysteria, or El Nino hysteria...or any other kind of weather scam. This one here's all about scaring people into giving away money. Of course, this may be much better at that than Y2K was...as the Y2K bug/alarm only truly extorted money from business directly.

No idea what the next scare-scam will be; but the next time I'm jumping on the bandwagon and making some money off of it.

[Polemicvol]

And as we peal back the layers of the onion (Tsonis et al), it isn't as impressive as doggie wants us to believe.

1) These guys are part of the Mathmatics Department at Univ. of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. One is a Russian expert in "climate dynamics" (whatever that is) and another an expert in chaos theory. The third is an expert in Dynamic Meteorology (whatever that is) Basically they are first mathematicians, and secondly climate researchers. So their research has primarily a mathematical focus.

2) Their work is derivative, just like I predicted. They don't do original climate research, they just ran existing climate data through a new mathematical analysis they created.

3) Their work ignores a vast body of real climate research on climate forcing factors and just takes four regional climate events and studies the corrolations between them. Unfortunately for them and anyone who wants to draw conclusions from their study, there are about a bazzillion other climate factors and many other climate cycles that weren't included in their work. If you leave out the rainfall in the Amazon, then one could conclude that a desert exists there.

4) Their work was published, but not in a standard peer reviewed journal. It was published in Geophysical Research Letters, which specializes in short research letters and super fast vetting of subject matter. One person approved it's publication, not a jury of peers as done in normal scientific journals.

I'm not that impressed with this work and it was virtually ignored by real climate scientists. But it's been big in the denialist circles.

[Polemicvol]

Dr. Theon was never Dr. Hansen's supervisor and he left NASA 15 years ago. He's just a part of that Crazy Senator Inhofe's circus of climate denialists and their funhouse of mirrors. Butt should find better sources.:kap:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/so_who_is_john_s_theon.php

Dr. Theon appears to have retired from NASA in 1994, some 15 years ago. Until yesterday I had never heard of him (despite working with and for NASA for the last 13 years). His insights into both modelling and publicity appear to date from then, rather than any recent events. He was not Hansen's 'boss' (the director of GISS reports to the director of GSFC, who reports to the NASA Administrator). His "some scientists" quote is simply a smear - which scientists? where? what did they do? what data? what manipulation? This kind of thing plays well with Inhofe et al because it appears to add something to the 'debate', but in actual fact there is nothing here. Just vague, unsubstantiated accusations.

[Dog of Orangebutt]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22author%3AJS+author%3ATheon%22

Here's a summary of 84 papers on various atmoshperic issues - mostly peer reviewed - that he's authored. If Gavin Schmidt never heard of him, that tells me more about Schmitd than it does Theon.

Not that it really matters, but this is exactly what Theon said in regard to supervision of Hanson in the early nineties:

“I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results,”

From what I gather the NASA chain of command tends to change fairly rapidly, so the fact that Schmitd, who wasn't even at NASA back then, might not be correct in this regard....is certainly possible.

Why do you think Schmitd would be lying? That's the real question to answer......and when you read the comments from your article, it appears that the worst thing anybody can come up with is that Theon is old.......gadzooks, what a crime!!!!

[Orangebutt]

You tried it with Theon, and you've tried it with this study as well.

S Kratzov (russians can't be scientists????)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22S+Kravtsov%22++climate&btnG=Search

KL Swanson

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22KL+Swanson%22++climate&btnG=Search

AA Tsonis

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22AA+Tsonis%22++climate&btnG=Search

Each of these individuals have over 300 peer reviewed climate related studies or citations listed with Google Scholar.....not the most scientific rebuttal I can offer as I'm not going to take the time to explore each listing - but certainly enough proof that these guys have dabbled in climate research a time or two.

The fact that you claim that the co2 Hoaxers haven't paid any attention to the study indicates either that you are just making that up and you have no proof to substanciate your claim OR the hoaxers just don't want to deal with anything that doesn't fit with their claims.....take your pick.....surely you can show me where you got this information, right?

Now please cite whatever studies from which this study was derived.....

[WestPointDad]

You tried it with Theon, and you've tried it with this study as well.

S Kratzov (russians can't be scientists????)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22S+Kravtsov%22++climate&btnG=Search

KL Swanson

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22KL+Swanson%22++climate&btnG=Search

AA Tsonis

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22AA+Tsonis%22++climate&btnG=Search

Each of these individuals have over 300 peer reviewed climate related studies or citations listed with Google Scholar.....not the most scientific rebuttal I can offer as I'm not going to take the time to explore each listing - but certainly enough proof that these guys have dabbled in climate research a time or two.

The fact that you claim that the co2 Hoaxers haven't paid any attention to the study indicates either that you are just making that up and you have no proof to substanciate your claim OR the hoaxers just don't want to deal with anything that doesn't fit with their claims.....take your pick.....surely you can show me where you got this information, right?

Now please cite whatever studies from which this study was derived.....


Shooting the messenger and ignoring the message is a birthright of the left. They have perfected that practice.

[Orangebutt]

Here are a bunch more peer reviewed studies that don't fit into Poley, The FlatEarther's agenda (while he drives an SUV, for pete's sake).....

Despite what many global warming alarmists assert in the media, there are many articles in the world's leading science publications contradicting the assertion that "the debate is over" about global warming. These articles destroy the illusion that there is a "consensus" among scientists about the causes of global warming. The following is the first of a three-part list of many such articles.

I'm too lazy to dig up the other two parts...this is plenty for now. Now let me add the caveat that all of these studies were undoubtedly conducted by Russians, Polacks, and one eyed Chinamen, so don't take them too seriously. Also they are clearly derived from other studies so they can't be right. AND there's no doubt that they were all published in "second tier" journals where peer review amounted to a quick interview over schnapps shooters and a trip to the crapper!!!!!

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/23406/Scores_of_PeerReviewed_Studies_Contradict_Global_W arming_Alarmism.html

[Polemicvol]

Regarding the strengths and/or weaknesses of the authors of that paper, the weaknesses of their venue of choice for publication, and the lack of merit of the paper. Only wingnuts would childishly call that "shooting the messenger".

We seem to get a lot of mathematicians dabbling in climate science. This isn't the only example. The Canadian statisticians who also had a derivative study, which was widely discredited comes to mind. Unless these math scientists have a firm foundation in climate science and the huge reservoir of knowledge that entails, then they are very likely to produce work like this with little merit.

Who did the work upon which these Wisconin math guys used to derive their work? Hell, I don't know, read the footnotes of their study, if they gave proper credit. But I don't think they were bobbing in the ocean reading temperatures, like real oceanographers that are career climate scientists.

After two threads, Butt has still failed to answer the most important question regarding this PDO theory of global warming. If four regional climate cycles are making the word hotter, where is the heat coming from? And how can that happen when temperatures of said cycles don't trend upwards, but themselves remain steady over time, as I previously proved with the PDO theory?

Does Butt and his newest denialist favorites have a new law of thermodynamics upon which they base their work? I've read that question posed by a number of climate experts on various websites regarding Tsonis et al, and haven't yet read even a single attempt to answer.

How can your phenomena, which to my knowledge isn't getting hotter, cause the world to get hotter? It's that simple and the primary reason why real climate scientists actually laugh about Tsonis et al's little study.

Where is the chart that shows the upward temperature trend for the last 100 years of these 4 combined climate events? You know, the chart that tracks a trend line that mirrors the increases in global temperatures over the last 100 years. Does it exist? I sure can't find it.

[Dog of Orangebutt]

I have mentioned at some point (and provided a link with a graph) that sun intensity when combined with PDO's provides a nearly identical temp variance as we've recorded over the past 100 years. Go back and dig it up yourself. I hate repeating myself over and over when you're just not paying attention.

There is also some real question now about cloud cover and it's impact....and you know what Poley the FlatEarther.....there's bound to be many .something elses that nobody's thinking about yet. That's the cool thing about real science....when you flatearthers aren't circling the wagons...when the real scientists continue to explore without directional agendas.....there's more shit to learn....if you'll let yourself.

[Dog of Orangebutt]

And keep in mind, Poley....these changes is ocean surface temperature means that the warm and cold waters are shifting.....this energy that you keep whining about could well be coming from the warmer waters that prevail during positive oscillations....and who's to say that the warm and cold are constants.....a longer warmer oscillation vs a shorter cool osciilation....that sort of shit.

Look I don't care if you wait for ten more years to jump the co2 hoax boat - but when you keep wacking on the scientists, who are rapidly growing in number, you're wasting your time.

[Polemicvol]

Your newest "hero of the climate denialist soviet", lied when he said he supervised Hansen in any capacity. He didn't, it's not true, and he's a fucking liar.

He just invented a new convoluted definition of "supervisor" which "in effect" is ludicrious. I guess by the same logic Obama must supervise soldiers in Iraq, cause he "oversees their budgets".

But another lie he told is perhaps better. Dr Deception said that Dr. Hansen was "never muzzled" when he spoke to the press about global warming. Wow, Hansen's "supervisor" says he was never muzzled. The casual reader of Senator Inhofe's crap would have to be impressed, Hansen's supervisor really should know, shouldn't he?

Except Theon lied. He was never Dr. Hansen's supervisor. And even worse, the "muzzling" in question took place over 10 years after Dr. Deception left NASA. So not only wasn't he Hanson's supervisor, he wasn't even at fucking NASA when said muzzling took place.

Butt, I'm afraid Dr Theon has piled up shit so high, it's hard to see his "publications" you linked. Or begin to trust anything in them. And it's not so much that he's old. It's that he's an old fucking liar and you quoted him.

[Dog of Orangebutt]

Hansen's undergraduate degree is in Mathmatics

His PHD is in mathmatics and physics

Geeze, I hate those fucking mathmaticians sticking thier noses places they shouldn't be!!!!!

And when you question the credentials of three scientists who have credentials as strong as The Mad Russian and his two Capitalist buddies, and can't comprehend how that's shooting the messenger...then "shooting the messenger" must have a completely different meaning in whack liberal circles.

[Polemicvol]

It's the Sun. Ok, now I've got it. It's the Sun and PDOs?

Or is it just the PDOs? How is the Sun combining with the PDOs to heat our globe? What is your causation? How is the Sun interacting with PDOs and moisture and all the other stuff you throw against the wall?

I'm afraid you still only have a corrolation, and as I've said a dozen or so times, corrolation isn't causation.

Prove the causation, then you might have something. Right now you don't. All you have is an alternative thought, well short of a real theory, for denialist flat earthers to gloam unto for your political ideological reasons.

You know, your "climate change fanatics are going to ruin the economy" stuff.

[Dog of Orangebutt]

Don't you remember...he's 120 - I doubt he's fucking anybody.....

I know you're getting all worked up, but try to keep this in context - as I understand it (and I'll go back and check this out)....Theon is speaking about when they were together at NASA when he was speaking of Hansen the Fucking Mathmatician not wearing a muzzle (I love that word - muzzle that is).


But here's the biggest question for Poley, The Flatearther. Over 800 Climate Scientists have recently signed where they are completly not a part of this magical consensus regarding co2 and global warming. Are you going to track down all 800 and tell the world how bad they are? Theon is one of these - but there many more and you'd better start denigrating right now....the list is getting longer and longer......

[Dog of Orangebutt]

and keep in mind....my position is that there are many factors...co2 being a minor player. The length and intensity of these oscillations are not constant...it's quite feasible that longer warms ones....more intense warm ones would tilt the scale toward a warmer trend. But your trend is the past 100 years....let's say my trend is the past 400 years and we have take into account the Midevial Warming that was quite prevalent all over the world....no matter what Mann and his cheaters say. They weren't growing grapes in GreatBritain and naming Greenland Greenland as a result of too many mushrooms and meade.......

Also try to comprehend that we are still wandering out of the mini ice age (again documented all over the world) and that began way before Henry Ford got lucky and built the car.....just what got those temps going up back then anyway?????

[Dog of Orangebutt]

“Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress,” Theon wrote

See the "we" and the "1988"?....that would have to mean that Theon was clearly speaking about times when they were both at NASA - not later when some sane person made an attempt to get Hansen to stfu.....and have you read his recent stuff - we're all going to die soon, now - it's probably too late....all while the ice and polar bears accumulate:tit:

[10 uh C VOL]

http://www.fark.com/cgi/go.pl?i=4275895&l=http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/4935/0094yepy8002935.jpg

[stonersboners]

The scary part of all of this is that the loons are now running the asylum, and they are intent on seeing this hoax through. EPA has a current proposed rule out for comment that will require 13,000 facilities to start mandatory reporting CO2 in 2010. The rule is being rushed through and will be final in June. This reporting will be used to establish a baseline for CO2 allocations for Crap and Trade. Estimates are that this will raise 800 billion dollars in revenues for our cash hungry government. This will ruin whats left of industry in the US, drive cost of all goods and utilities through the roof.

[Polemicvol]

in our current climate change situation. But that is very much a fringe position, not in the mainstream of scientific concensus.

Most climate scientists accept the fact that CO2 levels, created by man's burning of fossil fuels, have greatly increased and will continue to increase in the future. And they accept that this additional CO2 acts to warm the Earth's atmosphere and cause acidification of the Earth's oceans.

That's causation of global warming, not just a few corrolations. That's what you are missing in all your "explanations". There are climate cycles, unrelated to CO2 that affect short term and long term climate. These cycles are regional, global, and astrometic. However, we can't attribute the current warming trend to any known climate cycle at present. We can't prove causation of global warming by any known climate cycle.

Until we can, the thoughts you have shared are interesting musings at best.

[Polemicvol]

That several of these "800" aren't climate skeptics and have asked the Cato Institute, the compiler of that list to please remove their names from said list. Which seems to happen each time someone aggregates a list of climate skeptics.

Who is Dr. N. Here? And why is he on this list? (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/03/with-all-due-respect/#more-663)

Maybe they will check their list a bit better than the Oregon Barners did. I got on that list as a denialist "climate scientist", something I'll cherish forever.

Here's another critique (http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/25/cato-institute-global-warming-denial-ad-patrick-michaels-swanson/)of the Cato Institute's "With all due respect" letter to President Obama on climate change. It mentions another Tsonis study, and says Cato has misquoted the findings of that study. It's a new one I haven't read much about, but apparently Tsonis is a new boy wonder of the skeptic community.

[OBs Dogs Nutsack Flea]

and when there was, it meant just as much, scientifically as now.

Your definition of causation is bullshit...there is no causative link between co2
and temps.

A nice thirty year cooling will have folks that are dumb enough to still think that co2 is the devil...wanting to pour it into the atmosphere as a severe cooling kicks a severe warming's ass any day.

In the mean time I hate to think of the money wasted...the IPCC should be disbarred and charged with fraud.

They should also get rid of the designated hitter while they are at it......

[OBs Dogs Nutsack Flea]

It's hard for me to take anything Real Climate has to say about anything after they flat out lied about their fraudulent horse hockey stick and since the other link you provided is a summary of the first one.....I'm.....less than impressed.

If it makes you feel better, take Dr. N off (even though neither of us have any idea if it's legit or not...perhaps he's a bit shy or doesn't want to lose his job????) and I can live with 799.

The Oregon Petition is still there....why don't you show me where you're listed?

[humbletx]

And as we peal back the layers of the onion (Tsonis et al), it isn't as impressive as doggie wants us to believe.

1) These guys are part of the Mathmatics Department at Univ. of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. One is a Russian expert in "climate dynamics" (whatever that is) and another an expert in chaos theory. The third is an expert in Dynamic Meteorology (whatever that is) Basically they are first mathematicians, and secondly climate researchers. So their research has primarily a mathematical focus.

2) Their work is derivative, just like I predicted. They don't do original climate research, they just ran existing climate data through a new mathematical analysis they created.

3) Their work ignores a vast body of real climate research on climate forcing factors and just takes four regional climate events and studies the corrolations between them. Unfortunately for them and anyone who wants to draw conclusions from their study, there are about a bazzillion other climate factors and many other climate cycles that weren't included in their work. If you leave out the rainfall in the Amazon, then one could conclude that a desert exists there.

4) Their work was published, but not in a standard peer reviewed journal. It was published in Geophysical Research Letters, which specializes in short research letters and super fast vetting of subject matter. One person approved it's publication, not a jury of peers as done in normal scientific journals.

I'm not that impressed with this work and it was virtually ignored by real climate scientists. But it's been big in the denialist circles.

Mathma, mathma, aaahh those cypherin' types - WTF poley - ya have a problem with the numbers crowd? My experiences with the numbersnitwits - they got a pretty damned good grasp of things - relating to all things science related. Believe it or not they kinda/sorta go hand in hand..