Global Warming - running out of time to prevent ECONOMIC disaster

[Phronesis]

Yeah, funny guy. Not like the new atheist fundumbmentalists with their anti-religious bigotry. He had more class.

 

[w1z4rd]

Yeah, funny guy. Not like the new atheist fundumbmentalists with their anti-religious bigotry. He had more class.

LOL @ George Carlin postings.

George Carlin hates religion, is an atheist and thinks religious people are stupid. Whats new between him and other atheists... except he swears a lot more?

My mom, a devout Christian, sent some inspirational stuff said by George.. she nearly had a heart attack when she learnt who he was. She really does not like atheists.

 

[Phronesis]

Errr George Carlin hates everything, believes whatever he wants whenever he wants to make a joke or two and thinks everyone else is stupid. What's new.
A comedian, not your average dumb fundumbmentalist new atheist.

 

[w1z4rd]

Errr George Carlin hates everything, believes whatever he wants whenever he wants to make a joke or two and thinks everyone else is stupid. What's new.
A comedian, not your average dumb fundumbmentalist new atheist.

He really really hates religions, he is very clear on this.... several times. George is legend and he just rick rolled you

RIP to a legend.

 

[Phronesis]

He really really hates religions, he is very clear on this.... several times. George is legend and he just rick rolled you

He really really hates just about everything else, he is very clear on that... several times. He has a cynical outlook on life and your anti-religious hatred and fundumbmentalist bigotry blinds you. You don't even notice the most obvious things. He is a comedian btw... one with more brain cells than the average new atheist.

 

[w1z4rd]

He really really hates just about everything else, he is very clear on that... several times. He has a cynical outlook on life and your anti-religious hatred and fundumbmentalist bigotry blinds you. You don't even notice the most obvious things. He is a comedian btw... one with more brain cells than the average new atheist.

He hates people like you, so him and I have something in common He is definitely a hero in my books.

 

[Phronesis]

He hates people like you, so him and I have something in common He is definitely a hero in my books.

He hates people like you too. Can't say he is a hero of mine because he hates people though. That is just sad. Kind of juvenile, but hey, he was funny, unlike you, who just seem to be a fundumbmentalist with a bad anti-religious attitude. When you grow up, give a shout then we can talk like adults.

 

[w1z4rd]

He hates people like you too. Can't say he is a hero of mine because he hates people though. That is just sad. Kind of juvenile, but hey, he was funny, unlike you, who just seem to be a fundumbmentalist with a bad anti-religious attitude. When you grow up, give a shout then we can talk like adults.

I know George Carlin would want you to chill down.. stop being religious and visit http://smouch.net/lol/ (a site setup for people like you ) Chill out, its sunday and Jesus loves you!

There are a couple of us giggling on this side thanks to your Carlin posting. Wonderful posts from you two.

Im watching you and your anti-"fundumbmentalist"(wtf) and your anti-anti religious attitude and your ant anti anti omg!!!! haha I wanna go get some anti-coke, and have it with my anti-breakfast cause its anti-Sunday.

 

[Phronesis]

Hehe, trust new atheists to bring in religion when the joke is on "environmentalists". Kind of ironic, but hey, apparently I got "rickrolled" ROFL. Old Georgy boy would have loved to rip into that errr "wizzie's awesomely cool gotcha line" I am sure.
Wizzie, relax and enjoy George and the Sunday. Get some class dude, this thing you are doing is not good for your "image" as a so-called "rationalist". And please, lay off the hate there, you are not going to shake that "anti-religious fundumbmentalist bigot" tag anytime soon if you carry on like this. Besides, it is not good for the heart.

 

[BCO]

George Carlin is correct in the sense that the earth will eventually recover from whatever pollution and environmental destruction we cause. I don't disagree with him on that point. Having said that, as an environmentalist, it still pains me to see thousands of species eradicated because of us, entire ecosystems wiped out and huge loss of human life because of us. I don't understand anti-environmentalists who somehow think that all the pain and suffering caused by rampant environmental destruction is ok just because the earth will recover at some point in the future.

How is this ok?

 

[w1z4rd]

Hehe, trust new atheists to bring in religion when the joke is on "environmentalists". Kind of ironic, but hey, apparently I got "rickrolled" ROFL. Old Georgy boy would have loved to rip into that errr "wizzie's awesomely cool gotcha line" I am sure.
Wizzie, relax and enjoy George and the Sunday. Get some class dude, this thing you are doing is not good for your "image" as a so-called "rationalist". And please, lay off the hate there, you are not going to shake that "anti-religious fundumbmentalist bigot" tag anytime soon if you carry on like this. Besides, it is not good for the heart.

You got Rick Rolled. Scientologists also get Rick Rolled a lot. Whos the atheist ? Oh dear, you got something wrong... again. Hows your anti-sunday going? Having a fantastic anti-lunch? Its almost anti-monday so get as much anti-fun as you can anti-get.

 

[Geriatrix]

Here's something for you guys to play with.
http://clearclimatecode.org/nasa-giss-wants-to-use-our-code/

 

[BCO]

Very interesting, thanks Geriatrix. From the link:

It is our opinion that the GISTEMP code performs substantially as documented in Hansen, J.E., and S. Lebedeff, 1987: Global trends of measured surface air temperature. J. Geophys. Res., 92, 13345-13372., the GISTEMP documentation, and other papers describing updates to the procedure.

Currently the ccc-gistemp code produces results that are almost identical to the GISS code. As we emulate the exact GISS algorithm more closely, our results get closer.

Our ccc-gistemp code is available at googlecode.
Why GISTEMP?

1. The instrumental record is a key indicator of global warming;
2. NASA had already published the source code, we didn’t have to ask anyone for it;
3. The lack of clarity in the code was disrupting the public debate.

GISTEMP is not the only analysis of the instrumental record, the UK’s meteorological office and the UEA’s Climate Research Unit maintain HadCRUT3, JMA’s Tokyo Climate Center maintain a global series of temperature anomalies, The US NOAA National Climatic Data Center also provide global surface temperature anomalies.

 

[Phronesis]

More alarmist myths debunked:
New study debunks myths about Amazon rain forests

They may be more tolerant of droughts than previously thought

(Boston) -- A new NASA-funded study has concluded that Amazon rain forests were remarkably unaffected in the face of once-in-a-century drought in 2005, neither dying nor thriving, contrary to a previously published report and claims by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

"We found no big differences in the greenness level of these forests between drought and non-drought years, which suggests that these forests may be more tolerant of droughts than we previously thought," said Arindam Samanta, the study's lead author from Boston University.

The comprehensive study published in the current issue of the scientific journal Geophysical Research Letters used the latest version of the NASA MODIS satellite data to measure the greenness of these vast pristine forests over the past decade.

A study published in the journal Science in 2007 claimed that these forests actually thrive from drought because of more sunshine under cloud-less skies typical of drought conditions. The new study found that those results were flawed and not reproducible.

"This new study brings some clarity to our muddled understanding of how these forests, with their rich source of biodiversity, would fare in the future in the face of twin pressures from logging and changing climate," said Boston University Prof. Ranga Myneni, senior author of the new study.

The IPCC is under scrutiny for various data inaccuracies, including its claim – based on a flawed World Wildlife Fund study -- that up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically and be replaced by savannas from even a slight reduction in rainfall.

"Our results certainly do not indicate such extreme sensitivity to reductions in rainfall," said Sangram Ganguly, an author on the new study, from the Bay Area Environmental Research Institute affiliated with NASA Ames Research Center in California.

"The way that the WWF report calculated this 40% was totally wrong, while [the new] calculations are by far more reliable and correct," said Dr. Jose Marengo, a Brazilian National Institute for Space Research climate scientist and member of the IPCC.

 

[BCO]

Yeah yeah:

In the alternate universe of Fox News, Anthony Watts, and many others, up is down. Now, it appears, brown is green. Following the total confusion over the retraction of a paper on sea level, claims of another “mistake” by the IPCC are making the rounds of the blogosphere. This time, the issue is the impact of rainfall changes on the Amazon rainforest.

A study in 2007 showed that the forest gets greener when it rains less. A new study, by Samanta et al. in Geophysical Research Letters shows that the earlier work was flawed. Aided by an apparently rather careless press release, this is being used as evidence that the Amazon is less sensitive to rainfall changes than the IPCC claimed. But the Samanta et al. paper actually does not address the central questions at all. It only addresses whether a single anomalous rainfall year had an impact that is measureable and interpretable from a satellite sensor. The conclusion is that they could not detect a change. As noted in a commentary from Simon Lewis, University of Leeds, “the critical question is how these forests respond to repeated droughts, not merely single-year droughts.”

Lewis – a broadly published expert on tropical forests – makes a number of additional important points in his commentary below. Bottom line: IPCC gets it right as usual.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...down-brown-is-green-with-apologies-to-orwell/

 

[BCO]

And more on the above:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/03/saleska-responds-green-is-green/

 

[Arthur]

James "Feckless" Cameron - King of Hypocrites

Interesting email snippet from Ann McElhinney, well-known Irish Climate Change/Third World Poverty Activist, movie-maker, journalist, and (gasp) AGW-Denier.

Last March James Cameron sounded defiant.

The Avatar director was determined to expose journalists, such as myself, who thought it was important to ask questions about climate change orthodoxy and the radical "solutions" being proposed.

Cameron said was itching to debate the issue and show skeptical journalists and scientists that they were wrong.

“I want to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out with those boneheads," he said in an interview.

Well, a few weeks ago Mr. Cameron seemed to honor his word.

His representatives contacted myself and two other well known skeptics, Marc Morano of the Climate Depot website and Andrew Breitbart, the new media entrepreneur.

Mr. Cameron was attending the AREDAY environmental conference in Aspen Colorado 19-22 August. He wanted the conference to end with a debate on climate change. Cameron would be flanked with two scientists. It would be 90 minutes long. It would be streamed live on the internet.

They hoped the debate would attract a lot of media coverage.

"We are delighted to have Fox News, Newsmax, The Washington Times and anyone else you'd like. The more the better," one of James Cameron's organizers said in an email.

It looked like James Cameron really was a man of his word who would get to take on the skeptics he felt were so endangering humanity.

Everyone on our side agreed with their conditions. The debate was even listed on the AREDAY agenda.

But then as the debate approached James Cameron's side started changing the rules.

They wanted to change their team. We agreed.

They wanted to change the format to less of a debate—to "a roundtable". We agreed.

Then they wanted to ban our cameras from the debate. We could have access to their footage. We agreed.

Bizarrely, for a brief while, the worlds most successful film maker suggested that no cameras should be allowed-that sound only should be recorded. We agreed

Then finally James Cameron, who so publicly announced that he "wanted to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out," decided to ban the media from the shoot out.

He even wanted to ban the public. The debate/roundtable would only be open to those who attended the conference.

No media would be allowed and there would be no streaming on the internet. No one would be allowed to record it in any way.

We all agreed to that.

And then, yesterday, just one day before the debate, his representatives sent an email that Mr. "shoot it out " Cameron no longer wanted to take part. The debate was cancelled.

James Cameron's behavior raises some very important questions.

Does he genuinely believe in man made climate change? If he believes it is a danger to humanity surely he should be debating the issue every chance he gets ?

Or is it just a pose?

The man who called for an open and public debate at "high noon" suddenly doesn't want his policies open to serious scrutiny.

I was looking forward to debating with the film maker. I was looking forward to finding out where we agreed and disagreed and finding a way forward that would help the poorest people in the developing and developed world.

But that is not going to happen because somewhere along the way James Cameron, a great film maker, has moved from King of the World to being King of the Hypocrites.

- Ann McElhinney

 

[BCO]

So James Cameron's a douche.

Doesn't affect climate science at all.

 

[Arthur]

So James Cameron's a douche.

Doesn't affect climate science at all.

You're right, of course.

Almost as important, though, is the public airing of the issues, because that directly impacts public opinion and ultimately policy. When the richest and most influential film maker in history publicly calls for an open debate to publicly show up the bonehead skeptics and then wimps out - that again raises questions about how open the debate really is. It's a pity that the two camps pass like ships in the night, talking to their already-convinced camps. Cameron, it seems, is a high-profile widely-quoted very public 'useful idiot' for the Climate Change Party, and this needs to be outed. Regrettably there is less and less genuine debate because the issue has become so politicised.

 

[Arthur]

Uber-boffin Hal Lewis has resigned from the APS over the AGW scam. Read his resignation letter here.

* APS and much science has been corrupted by government money.
* Science has sadly become subordinated to current political fads.

... the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford's book organizes the facts very well.) I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:
...

I agree with him. I've little doubt that future generations will see the AGM scare and its supporters and promoters in a much worse light than Moderns see Galileo's alleged persecution. The irony is rich.