Why would you ask Dr. Easterling about farming or in the future about bio-fuels? What does a climate scientist KNOW about bio-fuel chemistry, agriculture, and the economics of Bio-fuels or agronomy? Come on and be a reporter and ask real questions that have do something to do with his expertise!
Why isn’t he questioned on output from the NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer's interpretation of the data? Spencer’s work is published, peer reviewed and accepted, showing the “climate models” theory is not corresponding to the data. (Wait a minute! Didn’t that also just happen to the 3000 ocean monitors data too?) LOL Can anybody see a pattern???
Let’s talk about the science and how the models are NOT agreeing with the best data from many sources! Just maybe we can start to unravel the mystery of why our instruments are flawed and why the data always has to be adjusted to meet the climate models projections?
His version of the how the IPCC report is written differs a whole lot from all those other scientists that say their concerns were never answered, glossed over and or just ignored. But then he was doing the glossing and the ignoring. Again, perception is everything.
Read learn ask questions and above read between the lines of these interviews. What he doesn’t say is just as important as what he says. It seems as if IPCC pundits have become masters of the obtuse doing their best to obfuscate and mislead.

I'm glad to see that the IPCC Lead Author shares his views about feeding the world with global warming while totally ignoring the chaos created by the production of corn based ethanol with current food supplies ! All types of grain are being foresaken to produce lucatrive corn crops while hiding behind the fallacy carbon reduction.

But, come to think about it, its pretty standard ..........the beauty of cherry picking ...... all in the name of AGW and CO2. If it might go wrong .......it has to be the fault of CO2 and that nasty natural heating that we should see any day now. Gosh darn it, I bet that by July, most of the snow will have disappeared as far north as Hudson Bay. Oh the panic!

Will wait for approval

Wow! If this is an example of the "science" being conducted by the IPCC then the world is in big trouble, not from AGW but from the IPCC. His statement that warming thus far has been anthropogenic and "ipso facto" future warming will be (anthropogenic) as well is astonishing.

I would challenge Dr. Easterling to provide evidence that historical warming (which isn't occurring today) was anthropogenic. How does he know this? Where are the studies that confirm this? Computer models are NOT studies! Studies require real world observations and subsequent correlation to man-made causes. These do not exist!

Then, as if he had a crystal ball with all the answers, he makes the outrageous claim that future warming will be antrhopogenic. Again, how does he know this? He has apparently excluded all other possibilities which could cause global warming in order to make such a statement. Folks, that's not science - no scientist worth his salt would ever make such a predicition.

Just for the record, my local weather bureau just declared March, 2008 the snowiest on record and we still have a week to go. We shattered the old record by nearly a foot!

It didn't seem like he was saying anything of value or interest, but he does appear to enjoy the role.

Here are some relevant quotes from a very bright fellow -

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."

"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."

Albert Einstein

Just a couple of things.

1) A new term: Oops-O-Facto. It's from the Latin, meaning "my model doesn't fit the facts"

2) The good doctor pointed out that in order for the science to be good you need to stick with your convictions and beliefs. I'm just not sure I think that's quite right.

All the best

Aaron

Ted: Ah yes, Dr. Spencer. The climatologist AND the creationist, all rolled into one. Makes you wonder where he gets HIS data! Couldn't be skewed at all. Try the Daily Kos for an update on the good doctor.

"black carbon" could cause up to 60% of the current warming effect

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/24/climatechange.fossilfuels

Kevinag:
LOL! Argue with the science not personal beliefs.
It's the science that matters not inane spiteful drivel. Your response shows just how weak your entire set of beliefs are. Please Save those types of responses for the daily kos.
As for the Daily Kos? When I want to see BS I can go to my barn. The best part is when I come in from the barn and shower, I feel clean. You can't say that after reading the posts on the Kos.

Ted: Ah yes, Dr. Spencer. The climatologist AND the creationist, all rolled into one. Makes you wonder where he gets HIS data! Couldn't be skewed at all. Try the Daily Kos for an update on the good doctor.

kevenag,

Let's be fair, if I beleive that evolution is a sound theory and think AGW is at best an unproven hypothesis, does that make either wrong?

We should judge the good Dr. by the merits of his statements, not by beliefs that are not pertaining to another.

You should be more harsh to the folks at the Kos who beleive in evolution but don't beleive in competition.

Now that is strange being that evolution would barely happen if there were not hardships that forced competition.

If a microbe got handouts and healthcare, it would never have to evolve into a human that gets handouts and is demanding healthcare.

Is that human going to evolve or devolve?

Life is full of questions. I have one.

Do you know where I can find any experiments that show how strong CO2 is as a GHG?

Steve

Wow. What assured finality Dr. Easterling espouses! I will love to see a pannel bebate between pro AGW and Skeptic AGW scientists with the hard DATA collected the past three years of global temps and weather events and ocean temp data as a backdrop. Such a open debate will provide a lively and entertaining and informative show. Meanwhile frost and freeze warnings are up tonight for the deep southeast US. I found Dr. Easterling unconvincing. I happened to be scanning public TV this afternoon and stumbled into a show fron City University that was all about how New York City has to face immenant climate change impacts with AGW policy mandates to institute GHG taxes and Cap and Trade Carbon permits because rising sea levels and persistant droughts are sure to happen anytime now! Global Warming issues must factor into policy initiatives immediately to best anticipate future climate change as well as super storms and crop failures. Oh my gawd, the presenters painted a picture of catastrophy that is like a frieght train headed our way. So the solution is TAX TAX TAX ! People, this fraud has got to stop.

Hi kevinag,

Here are some quotes quote from another creationist, name Albert Einstein. Does your "Daily Kos" cast aspersions on him as well?

I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts

Science without religion is lame.

Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.

The scientists' religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.

kevinag -

Come on - the Daily Kos as your source of trash on the good doctor? That would be like citing PETA for comments about any chicken farmer. They have a bias against him because his work doesn't agree with the Algore world.

Dr. Spencer gets his data from the NASA satellites and corrects it for things like orbital decay. Unlike him, Dr. Hansen alters his GISS data with some secret voodoo techniques to make every year in the last twenty to seem warmer than they actually are.

The sensationalism of "global Warming" is gettting out of hand. True we need to stop poisoning our earth by burning ANY carbon based fuels, even "bio-Fuels" which are still carbon base and can create carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. The news media knows what sells, and bad sells. Global warming sounds bad! It is bad, but lets look at Venus and Mars which also show signs of "global warming". You cant blame humans for that, there are none there! To many "experts" are giving all kinds of information to support global warming, but leaving out much information showing only a tiny part of the overall problem. You want to stop green house gasses, support hydrogen research. Not the idiotic fuel cells the automakers are trying to make a fuss over, but true hydrogen power from water. It makes the most sense. I already heat my workshop with tap water, the emissions of my heater are oxygen and steam which I condense and run back into my water tank.

Anyway, I am just tired of the media twisting things around. Get some real experts on the subject, not Al Gore, and report the whole truth, and nothing but the whole truth. Like my local network broadcast about a Michigan lady (my condolances to her family!) who was killed by a "stingray attack". The stingray did not "attack" her. The only way it would expend the kind of energy it takes to launch itself out of the water is if it was in danger(i.e. shark), not the way the news anchor made it sound to be (as if the eagle ray saw the poor lady and thought "Get HER!" Not!!!). The unfortunate lady was only in the wrong place at the wrong time.

So lay off the bull and give us information without judgement or prejudice, not sensationalism.

Perhaps the climate change models are wrong?

http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=394939

if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of warming (about 1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement...it is well understood by climate scientists. (We are currently about 40% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2.)

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm

Interesting experiment in human psychology - Canadians prove that no matter how persistently cold and snowy it is, they can be brainwashed into believing that their world is warming up.

OTTAWA -- Four of five Canadians disagree with the Harper government's approach to protect economic growth in Alberta's oilsands sector while allowing its annual global warming-causing emissions to triple over the next decade, a new survey has revealed.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=398559

Everyone said, loud enough for the others to hear: "Look at the Emperor's new clothes. They're beautiful!"

"What a marvelous train!"

"And the colors! The colors of that beautiful fabric! I have never seen anything like it in my life!" They all tried to conceal their disappointment at not being able to see the clothes, and since nobody was willing to admit his own stupidity and incompetence, they all behaved as the two scoundrels had predicted.

A child, however, who had no important job and could only see things as his eyes showed them to him, went up to the carriage.

"The Emperor is naked," he said.

"Fool!" his father reprimanded, running after him. "Don't talk nonsense!" He grabbed his child and took him away.

Marie,

That article provided a link to a site full of information about the buoys that float about, sinking and rising, all over the world's oceans.

http://wo.jcommops.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Argo

These Argo buoys produce data which is like the RSS satellite data. It is raw and pure, and hasn't been tweaked or "adjusted" by Alarmists or Skeptics. Already it is causing people to question models.

I had a rough time trying to find my way about the site, with the limited time and brains I have at my disposal, but I think others may find it a gold mine of information, once they learn how to manuver about the site.

Yikes. The skeptics are sure caustic around here nowadays.

Anyway, models do project well:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Comparing-IPCC-projections-to-observations.html

Hi Boris,

The models actually are doing very poorly. Global temperatures are barely warmer than 1940 or 1880, and temperatures have dropped nearly half a degree during the last ten years.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm

Not to mention the record Antarctic ice, record northern hemisphere snow cover, and widespread spring cold and snow. Check out today's ski report!

Last 72 Hr snow
1. Cypress Mountain, British Columbia 127"
2. Brienz -Axalp, Switzerland 59"
3. Eaglecrest, Alaska 38"
4. Lungern-Sch�nb�el, Switzerland 37"
5. Ovronnaz, Switzerland 35"
6. Peisey Vallandry, France 35"
7. Arolla, Switzerland 31"
8. Mt. Seymour, British Columbia 28"
9. Formigu�res, France 28"
10. Cauterets, France 28"

http://www.onthesnow.com/72hourdump_all

Boris,

The paper you are referring to “Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections” (Rahmstoorf 2007), 2007.http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Rahmstorf_etal.pdf is interesting. Rahmstoorf is showing how the data agrees with Dr. Hansen and IPCC predicitions..
If you look at the paper you will find Dr. Hansen as an author. LOL so a paper reassuring the world that his predications are right on target…..is co-authored by one of the original authors?
The statistics and the data of this article have been have been questioned by many outside the incestuous circle of IPCC peer reviewers. Dr. Hansen’s statistical methods NEVER seem to get it right …the first or 10th time.
Oh yeah this makes for great press but very bad science.
The more you read the more you see dogma not facts (Unless you adjust them) LOL and it's not even Friday!

Ted, and others: Lots of "inane spiteful drivel" directed my way! Hmmm, must have struck a nerve. You attack my data: I attack yours. Stalemate. Who is right? Who can tell? Whose reality will you use to choose? Can't stay; have to get back to running my business. Good Luck!!

"The statistics and the data of this article have been have been questioned by many outside the incestuous circle of IPCC peer reviewers."

Yeah, the skeptics are good at questioning things. Please point me to the published response to Rahmstorf et al. Oh, I suppose the great conspiracy keeps the skeptics from publishing a rebuttal?

And PH still can't separate weather form climate. How boring.

Hi Boris,

I do understand the difference between the AGW definition of weather and climate.

"Climate" is the completely unaccountable long term speculation which comes out the the back end of a grossly inadequate computer model, and can never be falsified because the modelers will always claim to have improved the models since their last mis-prediction. "Weather" is what goes on in the real world and is predicted by people who have to be accountable.

After falling flat on their faces last year with some incredibly bad predictions, the UK Met modelers released this remarkable admission.

The new model incorporates the effects of sea surface temperatures as well as other factors such as man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, projected changes in the sun's output and the effects of previous volcanic eruptions - the first time internal and external variability have both been predicted.

Remarkable that the same modelers had raised such a stink prior to fall 2007, without ever considering the real world in their GIGO modeling efforts.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr20070810.html