|
Post by trbixler on Feb 27, 2012 1:47:46 GMT
sig That is just one. Heck Glieck got 1.3 mil from the government. World wide the $ are said to 1 Trillion on AGW. The sales effort is wide and has penetrated deep.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Feb 27, 2012 15:36:48 GMT
Glennkoks, my interest in your thinking was piqued by your unwillingness to visit the WUWT blog which contains a wealth of scientific information and apparently is the most visited of all the climate sites.
I'd be interested to hear more about why you think the AMO is important and where you find your information. But that is probably more appropriate for another thread.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Feb 28, 2012 5:55:27 GMT
duwayne, I occasionally do visit WUWT but they are a little to skeptical leaning for me. FOX News is the most viewed cable news network but that does not really make them "fair and balanced". And I watch a lot of FOX but they are clearly rightward leaning.
As far as the AMO is concerned its cooling effects on the North Atlantic are pretty well known. Over the last 150 years we have seen roughly 3 positive (warm) phases and two negative(cold) phases. Over that same time period the IPCC claims we have seen about 1.2 C of warming. Just what will 35 years of a cooling North Atlantic do to that 1.2 C of warming?
Throw in the PDO and a low solar cycle or two and we may erase most if not all of that 1.2 C of warming.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Feb 28, 2012 6:28:32 GMT
duwayne here is a graph of the AMO I stole from wiki: Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Feb 28, 2012 16:23:54 GMT
duwayne, I occasionally do visit WUWT but they are a little to skeptical leaning for me. FOX News is the most viewed cable news network but that does not really make them "fair and balanced". And I watch a lot of FOX but they are clearly rightward leaning. As far as the AMO is concerned its cooling effects on the North Atlantic are pretty well known. Over the last 150 years we have seen roughly 3 positive (warm) phases and two negative(cold) phases. Over that same time period the IPCC claims we have seen about 1.2 C of warming. Just what will 35 years of a cooling North Atlantic do to that 1.2 C of warming? Throw in the PDO and a low solar cycle or two and we may erase most if not all of that 1.2 C of warming. It sounds like you are echoing my forecasts which date back to the beginning of this "Global Warming and Weather Discussion Board" and prior to that to the Board of the same name which preceded it and prior to that to a defunct blog which dated back to 2005. I've had the same forecast through all those years although I switched the anomaly measurement base from UAH to Hadcrut3 when the UAH calculation method was changed necessitating an update of my forecasts. I chose Hadcrut3 as the new base since it seemed to have wider acceptance than UAH at least among the so-called warmists. I plan to again restate my long-standing forecast and compare it to the latest actual data on the Prediction thread when this months Hadcrut3 data comes out. The forecast is based on the important affects of the Ocean Current oscillations as well as the GHG heat trapping.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Feb 29, 2012 0:13:47 GMT
duwayne, Perhaps I read your forecasts from seven years ago, it made sense to me and I subliminally stole your forecast. However, Joe Bastardi and others have based their long term thinking along these lines as well.
In any case it makes sense and I am trying to keep an open mind until we see the effects of a negative AMO.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Mar 1, 2012 5:12:32 GMT
A crack in the multi billion dollar AGW wall? "EPA has lost its way on warming" "Fourth, both the 2007 Supreme Court decision and the IPCC studies relied on by EPA predate the Climategate emails and other scandals that have revealed how contrived, questionable and perhaps even fraudulent global warming disaster “science” actually is. Had those documents surfaced prior to its 2007 deliberations, the Court’s decision might well have been very different. Fifth, allowing EPA to impose its CO2/GHG regulatory regime would effectively put the agency in charge of every aspect of Americans’ energy use, economic activities and lives. EPA’s unprecedented and exorbitantly expensive rules will severely and adversely affect hydrocarbon use, energy prices, food production, manufacturing, transportation, jobs, home and office heating and cooling, hospital and school operations - and thus human health and welfare. Finally, and most absurd of all, even eliminating every source of carbon dioxide in the USA - electricity generation, vehicles, industries, humans and animals - would do nothing to reduce other emission sources worldwide. While US carbon dioxide emissions are declining, those sources continue to raise atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Thus, despite their devastating impacts on America’s economy and living standards, EPA’s rules would do virtually nothing to forestall the harms that its pseudo-science predicts. Into this legal, scientific and regulatory cesspool now comes yet another element, which may yet go down as a key turning point in the debate - more important even than Climategate: Peter Gleick’s February 14 transmission of several stolen documents and a forged memorandum to 15 environmental activists in the United States and possibly abroad. " "Six days later Gleick, president and co-founder of the Pacific Institute, confessed to the crime. Virtually everyone now agrees the memo is a poor forgery, probably written by Gleick, although he still denies having done so. Gleick is a prominent member of the global warming clique. His take-down is big news, and one reason this scandal could overshadow Climategate in its impact on global warming debates. Despite all the Sturm und Drang caused by Climategate, no one really paid a price for the gross misbehavior revealed by the leaked emails - even though the actions were funded with taxpayer money and used to promote bogus science, harmful public policies, and massive changes in energy use and living standards. Gleick has been forced to step down from several positions, including as president of the Pacific Institute, and will likely face civil and criminal charges. His is likely to be only the first scalp that global warming “realists” collect from this incident. Heartland has indicated it will also go after Gleick’s accomplices in major environmental organizations and even in the drive-by media. The criminal and civil cases will drag out for years, and discovery could uncover even more misbehavior in the alarmist camp than did Climategate. Heartland may also face discovery, but the stolen documents suggest that it has little or nothing to hide. " icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/epa_has_lost_its_way_on_warming/
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Mar 2, 2012 15:58:36 GMT
Background. Who's Who of AGW. Fraud education at it finest. "While pursuing his M.S., Gleick also worked as a research and teaching associate with Professor John Holdren, who became his mentor (and fly-fishing instructor). “It was clear to me even then that water was an underappreciated and understudied resource, and a source of real future problems,” Gleick says. Holdren is now the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and President Barack Obama’s science adviser. After receiving his master’s degree, Gleick was offered a job working as the deputy assistant for energy and environment to California Governor Jerry Brown in Sacramento. In this position, he learned the value and importance of science for informing and influencing policy, as well as the political limitations on using science in the public arena. In 1983, he returned to Berkeley to get his Ph.D. At a time when most people hadn’t even heard the term “global warming,” he was researching likely impacts of climate change on water resources for his doctoral degree, which he received in 1986. Gleick’s dissertation turned out to be the first detailed analysis of how climate change would affect water resources in the western U.S. And, not too surprisingly, one of the world’s leading climatologists, Jim Hansen, the scientist dubbed “the grandfather of climate change” and a presenter at Nobel 43, Heating Up: The Energy Debate, in 2007, provided data integral to his dissertation. “That work really taught me how vulnerable our water resources are and how interconnected they are with our society, our economy, and our ecosystems,” Gleick says. It also made him want to continue his water research." gustavus.edu/events/nobelconference/2009/gleick-profile.php
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 2, 2012 17:12:58 GMT
Background. Who's Who of AGW. Fraud education at it finest. "While pursuing his M.S., Gleick also worked as a research and teaching associate with Professor John Holdren, who became his mentor (and fly-fishing instructor). “It was clear to me even then that water was an underappreciated and understudied resource, and a source of real future problems,” Gleick says. Holdren is now the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and President Barack Obama’s science adviser. After receiving his master’s degree, Gleick was offered a job working as the deputy assistant for energy and environment to California Governor Jerry Brown in Sacramento. In this position, he learned the value and importance of science for informing and influencing policy, as well as the political limitations on using science in the public arena. In 1983, he returned to Berkeley to get his Ph.D. At a time when most people hadn’t even heard the term “global warming,” he was researching likely impacts of climate change on water resources for his doctoral degree, which he received in 1986. Gleick’s dissertation turned out to be the first detailed analysis of how climate change would affect water resources in the western U.S. And, not too surprisingly, one of the world’s leading climatologists, Jim Hansen, the scientist dubbed “the grandfather of climate change” and a presenter at Nobel 43, Heating Up: The Energy Debate, in 2007, provided data integral to his dissertation. “That work really taught me how vulnerable our water resources are and how interconnected they are with our society, our economy, and our ecosystems,” Gleick says. It also made him want to continue his water research." gustavus.edu/events/nobelconference/2009/gleick-profile.phpAnne Ehrlich (wife of Paul Ehrlich of 'Population Bomb' fame) is on the board of directors at Pacific Institute. One big happy whack job Socialist family.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Mar 6, 2012 2:54:25 GMT
|
|