Black carbon is produced in diesel exhaust and when wood and coal are burned.

REPLY: Yep, that's it! Go after the evil coal industry. So more people will get put out of work, and our electricity will be powered by gerbils. A note to you coal mining union people out there. If you let these weenies have there way, you WILL BE OUT OF A JOB! So be careful as to which politician you choose to bash at your next Mitchell Day rally!

DENY DENY DENY THE GLO-BULL WARMING LIE!!!!!!!

Worldwide temperatures have been declining for the last ten years. As such, it is a dubious distinction to be the "second most important contributor" to global warming.

I do understand the author's motivation to avoid steping on the toes of people at GISS who can have his work censored. His remark highlights the corrupt and broken intellectual atmosphere in the climate community.

One sentence caught my eye:

"There is also uncertainty as to just how much of the black carbon in the atmosphere comes from human activities, Koch said."

Since black carbon and CO2 are both produced by burning, then surely the same uncertainty must apply to the CO2 as well.

Wow, looks like these guys took our little backyard experiment and turned it into something nearly indecipherable. No wonder the public is skeptical about AGW, these guys communicate among themselves then attempt to tell the public how it should think. If I have ever seen a 'study' speaking completely from the spectrum right and left, this is it.

Koch is commendable for being cautious for not immediately jumping on the bandwagon. However, give it a little time.

Someone is obviously going to have to correct me, but the 'conclusions' I draw from reading the study is:
1) Soot is very short lived, only weeks, but being absorptive of solar radiance(as we found) creates cooling.
2) CO2 will forever be considered by AGW Hysterics as the primary climate 'forcer', that is, until they freeze their tails off in the next cooling cycle unless they can jet around making millions telling everyone that they have to save mankind from itself.
3) The AGW community is covering ALL the bases just in case.
4) I was planning to start a camel dung enterprise and develop super efficient stoves to process camel crap. I believe they would have been successful if you don't have any problem coming home after a hard days work to a house smelling like camel s... . Looks like that's another of my 'ideas' out the door.
5) "But many of these radiometers are close to urban areas and it is unclear if the published trends are representative of true regional to global averages." Someone finally came out and said it in a paper. Sheesh, it doesn't take a rocket scientist, and given this fact it is entirely possible that we have had More cooling since 1998 that that documented due to the 'urban areas' skewering the data.
6) BC's have a surface warming effect...ABC's have a cooling effect that seems to override the BC's.
7) "whereas ABCs will lead to a cooling of both the surface and the atmosphere. In regions where such coupling is weak (for example, dry seasons in the tropics), the surface dimming due to ABCs can lead to surface cooling and thus can mask the greenhouse warming"....You Go Guys! had to get this in sooner or later! that's right, that dreaded 'warming' is still going on no matter what the temperature portends. Kind of like your shadow is Always with you regardless of lighting conditions inside or outside.

I could go on, but time and space prohibit. The 'conclusion', well, my conclusion here, is to ask a question: Has a real STUDY been done, notwithstanding all the 'supporting peer-reviewed papers' noted, that actually provides some relevant Data to actually study regards the subject or is this paper the usual fancy 'theoretical conjecture' that is forever coming out of the Hysterics?

Likely it it simply 'musing.' When you get 50 guys all passing their muses around for approval, pretty soon muse is accepted and becomes fact.

It’s CO2 is the problem---no wait it’s methane-----not so fast it’s carbon black---wait we have not accounted for that second most important “heater” in the models----but if we have not accounted for that in the models and it is so important how come Dr. Hansen says the models are so accurate???
Will somebody on the AGW side please get their story straight!
The peons who you want to pay for fixing this are really getting confused----wait maybe not confused so much as starting to understand that “Climatology” is a field so new it should do solid basic science to understand the dynamics of climate instead of telling us the earth is melting.
Like someone once said…. “Better to keep quiet and have people think you are stupid then to open your mouth and prove it!”
Brett- At least you got to Wednesday before the laughs started- Thanks….I needed that!

I have to wonder if the "black carbon" (as opposed to day-glo pink version?)(though I must admit it sounds rather more ominous being BLACK CARBON) is left over from the experiments probably undertaken in the late 70's to warm the planet by spreading soot on the icecaps?

LOL, just kidding.

On another note, it seems that my open burning of anything flamable and sooty seems to be working, I guess. Glad the scientists are finally acknowledging it.

Your welcome.

UAH data is out for March. Over the last 12 months, worldwide temperatures have averaged a whopping 0.17 degrees above the thirty year mean. I doubt the Princess and The Pea could notice a change that small.

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

Also interesting is that Antarctic temperatures were much below normal this past summer. No wonder Hansen thinks Antarctica is about to melt down and drown Manhattan and London.

How can Carbon Dioxide be the most important, when Methane is 7 time more powerful a green house gas than Carbon dioxide, and Water Vapor is 4 time more powerful than Carbon dioxide?

Especially since about 97% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is volcanic in origin?

Brett,

In contravention to everything I've heard about new babies, yours seems to be giving you energy instead of taking it away. You ar eposting like every five minutes it seems! Reply: Wow! It doesn't seem like it. I feel like I have been ignoring the blog lately with all the stuff going on outside of work. My wife and I are struggling to get any type of decent sleep as the baby is wide awake for the most part from 11pm-4am. We'll get it straightened out eventually.

Daniel Fuqua,
First of all, I think you misunderstand when people say that CO2 is the "most important" Greenhouse Gas. Water Vapor indeed has a greater contribution to the overall greenhouse effect than CO2. But right now H2O is largely independent of human activity (at least arguably so). Human's have increased CO2 concentration by at least 30% since preindustrial times. Methane is indeed a more powerful "pound-for-pound" GHG than CO2, but there is a lot less CH4 in the atmosphere than CO2. Not tomention that once put there, CO2 stays in the atmosphere longer than CH4.

Off Topic - But Interesting
The BBC is now officially a propoganda advocate of AGW:
Nothing reported there can be trusted any longer.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/04/bbc_folds_then_folds_again.html

Ramanathan spoke before his eminence Henry Waxman on October 17, 2007 pertaining to the above.

http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1550

"Atmospheric scientist Dorothy Koch of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), who was not affiliated with the study, cautioned that the case wasn't that simple."

Looks like Dorothy is vying for a promotion. Keep toting the Hansen, I mean company line.

You can see why GISS temp is simply not credible
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2008&month_last=3&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=03&year1=2008&year2=2008&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=reg
In fact it will turn out to be the skeptics greatest ally in the near future

Whether it's CO2 emissions, methane from industrial farming, or industrial soot, these are all anthropogenic influences on climate, and they all must be reduced.

methane and industrial soot do not stay in the atmosphere for as long as CO2 does, which makes them less problematic. if CO2 only stayed in the atmosphere for, say, 5 years -- instead of 100 years -- most people wouldn't be too worried. However, that's not the case, and henceforth, we see an accumulative effect with a linear increase in CO2 every single year.

Daniel Fuqua, briefly:

Along with what might be called the "direct" warming effect of GHGs, we need to account for both residence time and location in the atmosphere. CO2 has considerable persistence in the atmosphere, methane has relatively little and water vapor has virtually none. Also important is that there is a significant amount of CO2 in the stratosphere but nearly no water vapor.

The normal interglacial proportion of CO2 is 280 ppm. At present there is about 380 ppm, the difference being from human activities, meaning that we are responsible for a bit more than 25% of the total.

"They say this effect is unaccounted for in model-based estimates used in most studies, meaning that black carbon's actual warming contribution has been underestimated."

OK. The models don't properly account for:
Black Carbon
Clouds
Cosmic rays
Ocean currents
ADOs, PDOs, ENSOs, Denzos.....
La nina
El nino
Etc, etc, etc.
Tell me again how the models are accurate.
Has anyone ever attempted to add up all the Unaccounted bits to see just what is left of the CO2 AGW hypothesis?

"Black" Carbon? Sorry, not scary enough for me. How about Blood Carbon, or Death Carbon? After all, it is now the second most deadly substance known to man.

In order to really affect those who are already frightened of CO2, Adult White Male Carbon, or Republican Carbon would be more offensive and likely to get a better response.

However, if Koch added an adjective to try to sway the non believers perhaps Hillary Carbon or Gold Carbon would be better, those greedy SOB's would be trying to pan it out of the air.

Other kinds of carbon already or soon to be discovered are;

Right Wing Conspiracy Carbon
Serbian Sniper Carbon (This Carbon was recently found to be imaginary after it was found out that an "Only Human" originally made it up I mean discovered it)
Carbon Squared
Carbon Cubed
Carbon to the Nth degree for the One Upper's out there

If we remove Carbon from the periodic table and all hold hands & pray, maybe Hansen and his Son Our Lord and Savoir Al Gore will simply make all the Carbon disappear.

We just have to believe and all will be well.

Regards,

Steve

After thought: I wonder if the first tool making species said "I'm only a Homo Hablis!" when they lied in order to make themselves appear more favorable.

Off topic; again... sorry.
Brett; I think this might make a good thread topic.

Climate change confirmed but global warming is cancelled

http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=21153&cid=39&cname=NBR
Excerpt:

So by late last year we not only knew IPCC forecasts of atmospheric global warming were wrong; we were beginning to understand why they are wrong.
......
Furthermore, Spencer shows the extra rain that falls from these clouds cools the underlying oceans, providing a second negative feedback to negate the CO2 warming.

Alarmists' quandary

This has struck the alarmists like a thunderbolt, especially as the lead author of the IPCC chapter on feedback has written to Spencer agreeing that he is right!

Finally - some clarity about the madness surrounding AGW

Twenty percent of scientists admit to using performance-enhancing prescription drugs for non-medical reasons, according to a survey released Wednesday by Nature, Britain's top science journal.

The overwhelming majority of these med-taking brainiacs said they indulged in order to "improve concentration," and 60 percent said they did so on a daily or weekly basis.

The 1,427 respondents -- most of them in the United States -- completed an informal, online survey posted on the "Nature Network" Web forum, a discussion site for scientists operated by the Nature Publishing Group.

More than a third said that they would feel pressure to give their children such drugs if they knew other kids at school were also taking them.

"These are academics working in scientific institutions," Ruth Francis, who handles press relations for the group, told AFP.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080409184817.qle46eoh&show_article=1

Soot is short-lived, but a constant anthropogenic emission. It's not cummulative like co2 but it probably has greater warming impact than we realize, both in the atmosphere and at the surface from deposition. As for toxicity, soot is without question an enviromental problem that must be addressed.

Hey Brett,
How would one go about calculating the amount of soot my "Tunnel idea" would remove from the atmosphere once they were placed in service? Can computers model the effects of this? Also,what are your thoughts on the Tunnels? Reply: I am the wrong guy to ask that question Patrick.

Daniel,

During the complete combustion of gasoline for every 8 moles of CO2 made 9 moles of water is also produced. C8H18 + 12.5 O2 ----> 9 H2O + 8 CO2
(please don’t quibble about 87 or 93 octane)
So man is putting water into the atmosphere with every gallon of gas along with CO2. As for that that means------stay tuned to the debate.

I think I've worked out why GISS data is so skewed. (many other probably have as well). All the cold areas have been left out or don't have surface temps available (see Africa and South America (amazon) which have been constantly cooler (especilally march) for the last 6 months (see COLA).
As a scientist, for me, this is definitely not credible data/statistics

right now H2O is largely independent of human activity

Hi cmbclean,

Please justify that remark. There are huge amounts of water vapor generated by humans - nuclear power plants - factories, cars, households, farms, industry. H20 also absorbs a much wider spectrum of IR than CO2.

Please prove to me that human generated H20 has less effect on IR absorption than CO2.

TIA

Mark: Your last post was the first I read that was non-political. Thank-you. Maybe we can have an actual debate without political overtones. After all climate has nothing to do with politics. Does it?

This has struck the alarmists like a thunderbolt, especially as the lead author of the IPCC chapter on feedback has written to Spencer agreeing that he is right!

I'm guessing that this piece was published on April 1st.

Soot/carbon,black carbon,volcano ash in the air, if volcano ash makes it cooler why would this make it warmer?? (Reply: Read the study.) Anyway, Amen to Oiznop's top blog, we need coal for electric and people try to find a way to shut them down, even though its for there benefit, complain about farmers and try to stop this and that, even though its for there benefit, complain about oil use, against opening up new sites in Alaska{spots no one will ever see in their lifetime}even though its for their benefit, and oil is oil there is no alternative and all the messing around with alternatives is jacking up the price even higher now than it needs to be. Reason...look to the left. And all yeh one more thing, how many colors does carbon come in? Is there other colors of it than black, maybe I'll get a grant to turn this stuff to white carbon and cool this hot planet down and make people happy... The End.

VG,

The official analysis from GISS uses the 1200km smoothing radius. The anomaly this month is 0.67 according to GISS data. I won't guess the number's validity (it's fairly high compared to UAH and RSS data, but it's also using a different dataset), but I will say that it is consistent with this month's RSS and UAH analysis in that all three show a continued warming since the global temperature anomalies bottomed out in December.

Another great 50/50 climate debate site. Each side gets exactly equal coverage.
http://climatedebatedaily.com/

"The overwhelming majority of these med-taking brainiacs said they indulged in order to "improve concentration," and 60 percent said they did so on a daily or weekly basis."

I wonder how many inhale tetrahydrocannabinol?

:^)_~

BT:
Article published: April 7 2008.
Please do the appropriate research to disprove the claim that the lead author of the IPCC chapter on feedback has written to Spencer agreeing that he is right!
I am not sure I my searching is adequate.
However if you can't prove it wrong, I think is will stand.
No made up stuff now.

Hi Travis,

Looking at the GISS 250 mile data, you can see that the 1200 mile data smooths over hundreds or thousands of miles with no data. "Official" or not, it is misleading. GISS data is so incomplete and tortured that it needs to be chucked.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/04/08/rewriting-history-time-and-time-again/#more-1016

The rest of your statement is equally incorrect. UAH and RSS both show March at a lower anomaly than Decemeber. There isn't any upwards trend. March had a warm spot over Asia which skewed the data. Most of the world was below normal.
http://www.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/tlt/medium/global/ch_tlt_2008_03_anom_v03_1.png

We are not in a warming trend. More like a historic cooling trend.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm

This has struck the alarmists like a thunderbolt, especially as the lead author of the IPCC chapter on feedback has written to Spencer agreeing that he is right!

I'm guessing that this piece was published on April 1st.

REPLY: ha ha...ha ha ha...HAHAHAAHAHAHA!!! BT, you cut up, sometimes you just crack me up. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, and then there's now.

DENY DENY DENY THE GLO-BULL WARMING LIE!!!!!!

I'm guessing that this piece was published on April 1st.

Why is it that most AGW Advocates insist on guessing rather than finding it out for themselves?

Is it laziness or incompetence?

Perhaps if a guess is made by someone with Credentials or is Peer Reviewed by friends of the Guesser it is assumed fact.

Mark, Steve Bloom, do either of you corroborate BT's guess? If so, I agree as well.

Regards,

Steve

Don't hydrogen cars emit water vapor? Won't that cause more warming?

It's long been the contention of many AGW supporters that pollution is causing global warming.

I've never quite understood if that was because those people don't know what greenhouse gases are of if they're trying to pursued skeptics through disinformation.

Now we have a study that shows a common pollutant is also causing global warming. Coincidental, or real science?

as i read the above comments, it pleases me the healthy skeptism that appears to be overtaking the AGW hysteria...having said that, please continue opinionating dudes & dudettes, because the shrinking, tiny-tiny-tinier-by-the-day AGW alarmists will no doubt ratchet up their pontification of imminent doom, with slash and burn style tactics until the truth overwhelms it into submission...on a side note, i was reading Joe B.'s mother-of-all vortex predictions, where i noticed at the bottom of his column an AGW ($300 million campaign?) alarmism ad...it then occurred to me why Mr. BIGCHEESE at Accuweather commented the way he did about AGW...given the frequency of these ads on the Accuweather site i have decided he must be skeptic in disguise, pilfering ad money from the alarmists...way to go mr. BIGCHEESE...have a nice day bros....

Patrick Henry,

I'm afraid that you've caught me with my pants down a bit. I really just sort of assumed that the Human influence on the global hydrological cycle was slight. I really shouldn't do that, not just because it might be wrong, but because it's improper to claim something if you don't really know. I apologize.
That said, I wonder if anyone has any data on humanity's effect on the concentration of H2O vapor.

Please do the appropriate research to disprove the claim that the lead author of the IPCC chapter on feedback has written to Spencer agreeing that he is right!

Oh, that's rich. *LOL*

Here's the deal, Gary: if you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you to support that claim.

But seriously, I'll tell you what, Gary. If you (or anybody else) want this to be taken seriously, post a claim that includes the following information:

1) WHO the "lead author" in question is alleged to have been.
2) WHEN this "lead author" is alleged to have written Spencer.
3) WHAT the contents of this alleged communication are claimed to have been.

I solemnly swear that I will do my best to confirm or dispute this claim if you'll provide enough information to make such confirmation possible.

Failing that, this sounds like at best an April Fool's prank and -- more likely -- just another contrarian lie.

Patrick,

The rest of your statement is equally incorrect. UAH and RSS both show March at a lower anomaly than Decemeber. There isn't any upwards trend.

You are correct; I meant to say in January. Both the RSS and UAH analysis show February warmer than January and March warmer than February, but not that January was warmer than December. As for GISS data, I did not vouch for its accuracy; I merely pointed out that it showed the same pattern that RSS and UAH data did.

March had a warm spot over Asia which skewed the data. Most of the world was below normal.

The anomalous warm spot to which you refer stretched from the Azores to the Aleutians--almost all of Asia, half of Africa, and a good chunk of Europe. That makes up most of the land surface area in the Northern Hemisphere. When an anomaly is that big, it's not skewing the data, it's being represented by it.

BT:
I really did not expect you do anything. I was just poking a stick at you. A little harmless teasing because I enjoy your rants.
BTW, I made no claims, just posted a link to a story.
We will all likely know fairly soon if it is legit. Weather we want to or not.

I wonder how much soot was generated by natural wildfires that swept huge areas of forest, jungle and grassland all over the planet, on a regular basis, before Smokey the Bear started putting them out 100 years ago.

When we look at how large today's fires can get, imagine how large the free-for-all fires of centuries ago would become. Fires would burn for a long time, unhindered, before going out due to natural factors.

Throw a couple of dozen volcano eruptions per year on top of that, no hole in the ozone and the Sun's radiation glaring through an atmosphere with less CO2 than today and I wonder what the IPCC's models would have come up with?

Hi, Patrick Henry:

I agree by the graph that we are in a cooling trend, but will this continue or is it just another blip on the graph heading for the creation of a shallow valley before making the next warming upturn or is it heading for the creation of a deep valley, negating all the warming since, say 1984?

Hi Travis,

I've been watching the COLA forecasts and April is looking considerably cooler than March (relative to normal.) There are still some warm areas over Asia, but smaller and less intense than March. Africa and South America are well below normal, as is most of the US and Europe.
http://wxmaps.org/pix/clim.html

A little harmless teasing because I enjoy your rants.
BTW, I made no claims, just posted a link to a story.

Ah, I see. Just some "harmless teasing".

Sounds to me like another contrarian lie coming to light. Sort of like those seats over the Green Monster in 1978. Reply: BT you just won't let that one go will you? Time to move on.

Damo, can you do something to help your guys out? They're dying out here.

BT:
I wrote to the author of the Article (Owen Mcshane)and asked for the name of the IPCC author.
He was kind enough to respond but asked for patients.
He in turn contacted Roy Spensor and asked if we could name the Author at this time but they thought it unwise to do so until their sutdy has passed peer review and has been published.
At that time however, Owen intends to write a follow-up article and should be able to publish the name.

Bottom line: We will all know soon enough.
Appearently there is a lot of interesting data being churned out by the Aqua satellite that is causing lots of contraversy.

More to follow.

Those of you who have actually read my column about Roy Spencer's work will realise that I was reporting on two papers which I heard in person - one at the UN conference in Bali, and the other at the NY International Conference on Climate Change. Although I gave a paper at the NY conference in this story I was reporting on Spencer's presentation.
Roy sent me the Power Point presentation when I got back to NZ.
The statement about the lead author was verbal only, and when I asked Roy for his name when I started writing the story he said that reporting the name in print might prejudice one of his peer reviews and ultimate publication.
So hence the "teaser". Once Roy gives me the name I shall write a follow up story.
As a journalist (although really a specialist economist who reports on science matters) I quite like this teaser which has many people round the world waiting for the follow up.

As regards the temperatures over the last ten years, the numerous experts in many fields of climate science I talk to do NOT say that the last ten years proves that temperatures are now in decline.
Ten years does not make a spring.
What they do say is this last ten years when put against the temperatures of the last hundred odd years shows that the warming and cooling over that period is unremarkable and certainly no grounds for panic.
The alarmists claim that the last century has been without precedent in the history of the world.
It is difficult to look at the temps from 1900 to 2008 and agree with such a view.
They also point out that the IPCC models did not predict this plateau. Surely if the alarmist view is correct � that increased CO2 remorselessly drives up temperature and that we are nearing a catastrophic tipping point then the models would predict it and it would turn out to be true in real life.
NOthing seems to be going to the alarmist plan. Methane levels are behaving the same way. How come. Although we should be surprised that methane levels do what comes naturally. There is no evidence that there are more ruminants now than in the past.
The sixty million or so US cattle simply replaced 60 million or so buffalo - and they are more efficient and produce less methane per head. Although our NZ cattle produce less methane per head than anyone because we are grass farmers without subsidies.

BT

I think if you look at the statement, and other statements Gary has made, it would appear as if he was makign a bit of a joke. I think his statement was intentionally over the top.

Though I agree with you, I do want to see proof that this claim is true, as it would be crucial to our skeptical/denier side.

"especially as the lead author of the IPCC chapter on feedback has written to Spencer agreeing that he is right!"

Gary, if you made the claim, you must have seen it somewhere, so where did you see it. I cannot read the article cause I am firewalled, is it in the article?

GW Steve and others - it's probably called black carbon because it comes from diesel exhaust, burning coal, burning wood, etc. Don't most of those processes produce black, burned, crispy things?

Whether it affects GW or not, reducing soot or black carbon would be beneficial to those with respiratory conditions. Many people here talk about burning as much coal or oil as we can as if it would have no effect on people. If you have asthma/COPD or know someone who does, that might be a big problem.

If anything, we should burn those fuels as cleanly and efficiently as possible.

Patrick H- What does your post regarding performance enhancing drugs have to do with global warming anyway? Answer: nothing.

Is there a list of the scientists taking these drugs? If there is, can you post a link?

If not, you might want to read this part:

Wilson of the NIDA expressed surprise at the rate of substance abuse shown, but cautioned that the survey did not meet rigorous scientific standards.

"This is a volunteer poll of people responding to an Internet survey. There might be an over-representation," he said.

Nice cherry picking. You left out this part.

Ritalin, a trade name for methylphenidate, is a stimulant normally used to treat attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, especially in children. Modafinil -- marketed at Provigil -- is prescribed to treat sleep disorders, but is also effective against general fatigue and jet lag. Both medications are common currency on college campuses, used as "study aids" to sharpen performance and wakefulness.

I'm surprised PH, that you as a "scientist" continue to berate your own profession. What is your motivation for doing this, since the article you linked to never mentions climate scientists or AGW?

Here's the deal, Gary: if you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you to support that claim.

Kind of like some actual tests that show how and how much CO2 is adding to the Greenhouse Effect rather than simply saying it is very highly likely adding to it and attributing a guessed value?

What a novel thought BT, I commend you! We need more people like you around.

Gary,

Shame on you for providing a link, are you not aware that only NON-CONTRARIANS (a.k.a. The Righteous) are allowed to point to links? One of these days you will follow the true path just as I am learning to do.

It stings a little at first, losing one's free will and sense of logic, but once you start to feel the air of superiority and recognize that the Contrarians are actually evil ignorant people who hate their own children, you won?t even care if your cause or direction makes any sense because shear numbers will make you right.

Being part of The Flock has great advantages. As our numbers increase, there will be no stopping us. Come join us before it is too late!

Thank you very much,

Steve

Bottom line: We will all know soon enough.

No, the bottom line is that its another unverified, unverifiable contrarian cheapshot. Another in the long line of innuendos, distortions, rumors, and plain-old lies.

Has it ever occurred to you folks to seek such verification before, rather than after, you repeat such rubbish?

BT:
Has it ever occured to you that you are missing the point.
The IPCC link is interesting but in no way alters the content of the report.
It is merely a bit of comfort for AGWers who won't believe anything unless it is IPCC sanctioned.
For the rest of us, IPCC approval is about a meaningful as James Hansens word that temps are at record levels and climbing.

The earth water,air are cleaner now than they have been for many years, fuels are being burnt/used more efficiently, energy is being produced more efficently. We need energy/electric and if there a small negative o'well there is alot bigger positive. Are source of energy is fossil fuels and will stay that way, again the alternatives are not better.

Hi Veets:
You read correctly. I just new BT would jump all over me for that post so I was having some fun.
Sorry.

Anyway, Like I said above, I made no claims. I just posted the link and an excerpt.

And as you see, Owen was kind enough to post a comment clearing up the issue as " To be continued "

Cheers.

Hi BT,

They're not my guys. But I'll claim them if you claim Steve Bloom. His ego may get a bit of a helpful bounce if he was actually selected for a team every now and then.

They're not my guys. But I'll claim them if you claim Steve Bloom. His ego may get a bit of a helpful bounce if he was actually selected for a team every now and then.

I'm happy to "claim" Steve Bloom as one of the white-hats.

And as you see, Owen was kind enough to post a comment clearing up the issue as " To be continued "

Ah yes. The apparent source of the "teaser" (his word, not mine) seems quite proud of his PR success. Why, he's got "people round the world waiting for a follow up". Yes, an excellent "journalist", this "Owen McShane". Even though he knows that his only source won't confirm his rubbish, he goes with the "story" anyway, and then comes here to proudly trumpet his "success."

This little episode exemplifies the dishonesty of the contrarian community. An unscrupulous PR flack who publishes whatever he hopes will get some play -- even though his only source is evasive. A source who, in the twilight of his professional career, apparently thinks he can have it both ways with the legitimate scientists who review his work. Does Spencer really think cute little dances like this enhance his credibility? If anything about this "story" is true (which I strongly doubt), does Spencer think that any scientist will ever write him so much as a thank-you note again? If the story is false (which I strongly suspect), does he think his collusion which such flacks helps his chances of being published?

I want to express my appreciation to Gary, and to "Owen McShane", for this concise case-study of contrarian ethics. It's enough to make Marc Morano proud.

BT:
Thank you for that absurd tirad.
I will of course keep it so that I can pull it out when Dr. Spencers study comes out and show everyone how desperately you cling to your religeous beliefs.

It will be entertaining to say the least to see the most arrogant of the AGW cult proven wrong yet again.

Hi BT,

"I'm happy to 'claim' Steve Bloom as one of the white-hats".

And here I thought you were one of the "reasonable" AGW proponents. It may be a little difficult staying seated on your high horse now that you've willingly tethered yourself to someone as or more guilty of the misrepresentation, obfuscation, veiled threats and false accusations you've accused others of.

I'm interested, do you use the term "white-hats" because you are a fan of Westerns or because you have been ideologically driven into reducing a complex debate into a simplistic zero sum, us vs. them, good vs. evil, fight the good fight paradigm?

I for one hope its because you were a really, really big fan of Roy Rogers.

And with that, I think I will emulate Roy Rogers and, at least for a while, ride off into the sunset.

Although at at times interesting, participating in this blog is eating up far too much of my time and I've become more than a little tired of the acrimony and political/moral posturing of both sides.

Brett - thanks for the obviously large amount of time you dedicate to corraling the posts and comments. It must be an endless task and one which I certainly have appreciated.

reply ; thanks for visiting damo. (as I type with one hand holding the baby ) brett

And with that, I think I will emulate Roy Rogers and, at least for a while, ride off into the sunset.

Ah, well. Good luck, Damo. As much as we may differ in our perspective on AGW, I've enjoyed your commentary.

Does this mean I can start calling them "deniers" again? Just kidding...