Why do you give this discredited crank front-page visibility?

There is nothing new in his claims, no substance to his complaints, and his content-free rant is published in the house organ of Marc Morano, another discredited right-wing shill.

This kind of bunk makes me rethink my participation with this site.

Reply: Dr. Gray is a respected atmospheric scientist with many years of experience Tom. In order to produce the long range tropical forecasts that he has done for years you need a great understanding of how the atmosphere works. Maybe he is off target in regards to GW, but you have to respect his opinion.

This is explosive (thanks to whomever posted the link at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-Climate-change-emails-row-deepens--Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html :

"At the CRU, said Davies, some stations’ readings were adjusted by unit and in such cases, raw and adjusted data could be compared.

But in about 90 per cent of cases, the adjustment was carried out in the countries that collected the data, and the CRU would not know exactly how this had been done."

In other words, we may never be able to see the raw data from which the claims of the GW swine are derived. They should simply be flogged in public exhibition and exiled to South Georgia Island. The hubris of these people is beyond criminal.

Gray got the hurricane story right while Trenberth and the IPCC commentators were wrong. It is interesting how so many retired scientists (who no longer need to fight for grants) have spoken up to expose the very unscientific basis for the unsupported the AGW thesis.

Wonder how many icebergs are floating in the Hysterical Sea and which one is going to take down the Hystanic.

The Tip of the Climategate Iceberg
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/11/the-tip-of-the-climategate-iceberg-55941015/

Excerpts:

Contrary to the whitewash job conducted by propagandists, there are 450 academic peer-reviewed journal articles questioning the importance of man-made global warming. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has collected more than 30,000 American scientists urging the U.S. government to reject the Kyoto Treaty, which pushes draconian measures to reduce carbon emissions. Much hay is made of 2,500 United Nations scientists who back Kyoto, but there are many more scientists with Ph.D.s among the 30,000 skeptics than there are among the oft-cited 2,500, most of whom are government bureaucrats without advanced degrees.

Before Mr. Obama and his Environmental Protection Agency commit trillions of dollars of American wealth to his pet political causes, his administration might want to consider some real science in its decisions. That would be a refreshing change from the White House. >

A peculiar response of the Financial Times to the CRU materials is: The scientific case for alarm about global warming "is growing more rather than less compelling." If so, then could anything make the case less compelling? A CRU e-mail says: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment" (this "moment" is in its second decade) "and it is a travesty that we can't."

The travesty is the intellectual arrogance of the authors of climate-change models partially based on the problematic practice of reconstructing long-term prior climate changes. On such models we are supposed to wager trillions of dollars, and substantially diminished freedom.

Some climate scientists compound their delusions of intellectual adequacy with messiah complexes. They seem to suppose themselves a small clerisy entrusted with the most urgent truth ever discovered. On it, and hence on them, the planet's fate depends. So some of them consider it virtuous to embroider facts, exaggerate certitudes, suppress inconvenient data, and manipulate the peer-review process to suppress scholarly dissent and, above all, to declare that the debate is over. George Will

You gotta love it! Hysteric after Hysteric after Hysteric plugging the holes in the dike. Hysterics in their posh accommodations aboard the Hystanic, wining and dining.....

"HARD ASTARBOARD!"

Thank You Dr. Gray! The Man Made Global Warming issue is more of a new world religion than scientific debate. The lure of big money for scientific research is what I believed spurred this whole thing. Starving scientists became rich with the billions spent on this research over the last 25 years. Heck, we can't accurately forecast weather from two weeks out let alone forecast what the Earth's tempature will be in the year 2050. If you don't believe me just ask Henry Marguisty! Still waiting for the "Big Daddy" Henry!! HA-HA

Even if Dr. Gray is right about the climate, I have to strongly disagree with is predictions of economic doom because of a shift to renewable energy. I have been an energy professional since 1978. My conclusions are that shifting to renewable energy sources can result in thousands of new, non exportable, quality jobs. Repairing our deteriorating infrastructure will result in thousands of non exportable, quality jobs. Modest increases in the cost of energy will be more than compensated by increased employment, increased community health and a higher quality of life.
Dr Gray presumes we can only prosper with more coal, more oil and more nukes...He is wrong. We already have too much damaging pollution and were we to go global cooling, the pollution would be worse, health would be worse and dependency in an energy monoculture would make life harder. Stick to the weather Dr. Gray!

Kudos to Dr Gray for this comment......

"There has been an unrelenting quarter century of one-sided indoctrination of the western world by the media and by various scientists and governments concerning a coming carbon dioxide (CO2) induced global warming disaster."

AlGore, who has the scientific IQ of a grapefruit, says the Science is settled....

Dr Gray, a real Atmospheric Scientist, says....."Not so fast, my friend"...."The global climate models predicting large amounts of global warming for a doubling of CO2 are badly flawed."

I, for one, would tend to think Dr Gray's opinion trumps a bloviating, washed up politician's opinion about the causes of Climate Change.

I'm just sayin'........

Global Warming-IS- Human / Industrial Pollution
The best indisputable SCIENCE example that should be the #1 item on the Copenhagen Agenda would be the toxic waste dump, the size of Texas, 900 miles off of the United States and Canadian West Coast.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GreatPacificGarbagePatch
That is a Big SCIENCE problem with no dedicated U.S SCIENCE and INNOVATION DEPARTMENT to address the issue. The U.S (or Canada) has not even sent out a SCIENCE research vessel to evaluate this ecological disaster; neither country wants to take the responsibility for the industrial/human pollution or even acknowledge its existence.
No Profit-No Action!-No SCIENCE! Will the World Trade Organization and the New Industrial World Order address the issue? Where is their World SCIENCE Department?
Can the problem be solved with SCIENCE? Probably so, Americans are very ingenious primarily because we were raised with the compliments of Freedom and Democracy and are free thinking individuals. We could probably figure a way to clean up the mess and possibly make a profit doing so.
We can do nothing until we have a DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE that is free to address SCIENCE and to develop the advancement of SCIENCE. (Yes, for the sake of humanity; SCIENCE FIRST-PANDERING SECOND.)

Sadly, Obama now knowing this was a contrived and manufactured process will become part of the cover-up once he arrives in Copenhagen pledging even more taxpayers money to the crooks.

Obama, a chain smoker, telling the world the evils of cabon dioxide. What a hypocrite.

Sadly, Obama now knowing this was a contrived and manufactured process will become part of the cover-up once he arrives in Copenhagen pledging even more taxpayers money to the crooks.

Obama, a chain smoker, telling the world the evils of carbon dioxide. What a hypocrite.

Dr. Gray is by AGW Industry definition:
Uneducated
Un-scholarly
Un-trustworthy
Biased
Deluded
Out of date
Suffering Dementia
And of course, evil
Why?
Because he dares to speak the truth in spite of the clearly defined Church doctrines.

Science will be decades recovering credibility because of the AGW Fraud.

I think Dr. Gray says it all in a nutshell.

We are being asked to ruin our economy for the sake of CO2 reductions that will make no discernable difference in our global climate.

Already posted this once in a different thread when Gray's on-the-edge-of-nutcase ideas came up:

Gray and Muddy Thinking on Global Warming

Yet another example of the termites swarming out of the woodwork, aided and abetted by the promulgators of disinformation, giving a soapbox to every voice with a stupid opinion to share, particularly if they have Ph.D. attached to their name to give it more weight with their gullible, exploited flock.

Well, I fear William Gray has "gone emeritus" as the saying goes.

The deep ocean doesn't have just one storage time, but (approximately) one per basin with recurrance times varying from 150+ years to over 2000. This makes it rather hard to see deep water upwelling as a substantial contributer.

John Tyndall established, in his laboratory in 1859 CE, that CO2 is a global warming (so-called greenhouse) gas. The amount of additional warming for additional CO2 was then worked out over the next 110 years; the final results are to be found in the MODTRANS data.

And on, and on and on...

CO2 in Earth's History webcast AGU lecture by Alley:
http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2009/12/co2-in-earths-history.htm

Tip of the ice berg indeed.

With the breaking news about Darwin temperature records (http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=darwin)
the realisation that we have no reliable data on historic climate should be cause for pause.

The popular claim that current temps are unpresidented are clearly false.
But so may be the claim that recent warming was .6 degrees C.
If the records have been fudged as much as it seems, the actual increase in temps may be less than .3 degrees.

It will take years to reconstruct honest trend data and of course the current crew Can Not Be trusted to carry out that re-evaluation.

In the mean time, we need to pause any action on this issue. A .3 degree increase woould clearly indicate that none is warrented.

Indeed, this is the tip of a very large ice berg.

Again I would advise, if you have investments in green upstarts that are reliant on tax subsidies, Get you money OUT NOW!

Brett katie;

I listened to an interview with Bjorn Lomborg today.

It was very inciteful.
He spoke of te real cost of action and the value of it effects.
IE: The projected cost of reacting to AGW (by the alarmsits) is 3 trillion dollars.
The projected cost to mitigate it using conventional methods is 42 Trillion dollars.

Therefore the return on investment is 3%. Or for every dollar spent three cents of value is gained.

Bad investment by any standards.

Any chance you could arrange an interview with him and Katie?
It would be great debate fodder.

Brett,why the link to this typically provocative nonsense? Dr Gray isn't saying anything that hasn't been put equally badly by others before him.

On the other hand,you're giving him another opportunity to discredit himself publicly...

Check list: never in all my years...it's a conspiracy...infringement of US sovereignty...self-serving,vested interests...socialists involved...models don't work...we're coming out of the LIA (unreferenced)...warming is the result of multi-century changes in the globe's deep ocean circulation (unreferenced,and caused by?)...emails,especially unseen ones,are damning...it will destroy the economy (but I'm not an alarmist)....sourced via Marc Morano.

Yep,it's the package.

This is a poll. Who would you be more likely to believe about whether AGW has a solid scientific basis - Dr. William Gray or Bill Nye the Science Guy?

Thank you Dr. Grey. Thank you Brett. I am glad to see big names get some decent face time on the subject matter even if the major news & media networks wont run with the story. We all know GE ( who owns NBC and affiliates, now even the weather channel) stood to make big money off the cap and trade (cap & tax) bill.

Who has said it better? ---

"...orchestrated by a combination of environmentalists, vested interest scientists wanting larger federal grants and publicity, the media which profits from doomsday scenario reporting, governmental bureaucrats who want more power over our lives, and socialists who want to level-out global living standards...."

from the opinion you sighted

Dr. Gray-

The 'iceberg' of your inaccurate 'Hurricane Forecast' was perhaps the impetus for your 'revelations'?

The only 'tip' about 'Global Warming' is that we hope there really is no 'tipping' point.

(Real name George Hebbard PE)

I believe that plant response to increasing atmospheric CO2 is a net positive for the world. Many studies have shown that increasing CO2 correlates well with increased drought stress resistance, increased yield, and disease resistance.

I work in the phosphate side of the agricultural industry, and follow the effect of plant-applied chemicals. I believe that as much as 15% of the yield increases attributed to "improved hybrids" are instead due to the current higher levels of CO2.

Copenhagen, Denmark-

Protesters are asking for MORE to be done about 'Climate Change'.

Where are the 'protesters' against 'that damned warming thing' -AGW ?

ANS.- They are on their computers, especially on this site. I forgot....."Global Warming' does not exist in the 'Virtual World', only in the actual world outside.

ps- One of the largest icebergs from Antarctica is nearing Australia after a ten year journey.

Sigh.
I thought I was get some real science out of this. Instead I hear arguments against AGW as statements similar to "CO2 reduction is too costly" or "the media is overblown". How do either of those arguments offer us any evidence that man does not contribute to global warming?
If you want to truely debate this scientifically, then do it. Don't discuss your opinions on cost of reducing CO2 output especially since those opinions may actually be incorrect.

Of course its just the tip of the iceberg. Otherwise how is he going to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

Thanks Brett:

Nice to hear some balance to this global warming juggernaut.

No kidding ... I've said for years that if the phoney-baloney science of glo-BULL warming could stand up to scrutiny then people like Mann, Jones, Briffa & Hansen would be bending over backwards to show the "robustness" of their data & calculations. In practice the norm is hiding the data & dodging the FOI requests & rubber stamping "peer review" by their accomplices in deceit.
Mann made global warming / climate change indeed. The CRU was caught red handed with weapons of math destruction!!

It is interesting in reading some of the retorts on this blog. It would seem all those that believe in Man Made Global Warming can not make their point without disparaging people who do not share in their own belief. Sounds alot like the Liberal Democrats who are running the country in to Bankruptcy.

Enginer | December 14, 2009 7:42 AM:

"I believe that as much as 15% of the yield increases attributed to "improved hybrids" are instead due to the current higher levels of CO2."

Between 1986 and 2005 precipitation increased by 1.1% and 1.2% (Frank Wentz et al). The planet also warmed by a half a degree. So combined with the increase in CO2 fertilization, increased rainfall and temperature, they would account for much of the increased agricultural output. GM would be minor. GK

Global Cooling is Here
Evidence for Predicting Global Cooling for the Next Three Decades

by Prof. Don J. Easterbrook
Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University. Bellingham, WA. He has published extensively on issues pertaining to global climate change

CONCLUSIONS of the article:

Global warming (i.e, the warming since 1977) is over. The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.008%) was not the cause of the warming�it was a continuation of natural cycles that occurred over the past 500 years.

The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than the global cooling from about 1945 to 1977. Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cool cycle is uncertain. Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783

There seems to be a misconception that sceptics are against renewable energy.

That is of course rediculus.

Renewable energy will evolve in due course and take over from Fossil fuels when its time is appropriate.

We are simply against using lies to force a radical change before it is appropriate.
We are against causeing needless hardship in the name of idiology and radical environmentalism.

We are certainly against forfiting our rights and freedoms in the name of a manufactured cirsis.

Tell us the truth and show us the cost benefit figures and we will accept change when it makes sense.

Interesting link:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5632946/why-those-emails-are-lethal.thtml

Hey BrooklineTom:

Stay away from the name-calling. So far this blog has been courteous and informative. I have been following Brett's blog on GW and it has been heavily leaning toward promoting the GW hoax. Yes, Brett if you review your headlines, most headlines are suppostive of the GW fantasy, I guess because your employer is so aligned. And Brookline Tom stop whining about not posting anymore, if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

Brett is to be commended for giving both sides to the GW debate,and taking heat from those who support it, by offering a countering view.

Too bad all the news was not reported this way. Faith in what we read, see on TV and hear on the radio regarding what is happening in the world would be greatly increased by an increasingly skeptical public.

Good journalism is inclusive, and shares all views on a subject.

You can always tell when someone feels they are losing an argument. Rather than state their case, they immediate descend into name calling and character assassination. Thank you Brett for straightening out Brookline Tom. It shows you care for the opinions of others.

Brett wrote:
Dr. Gray is a respected atmospheric scientist with many years of experience Tom. In order to produce the long range tropical forecasts that he has done for years you need a great understanding of how the atmosphere works. Maybe he is off target in regards to GW, but you have to respect his opinion.

I respect Dr. Gray's many historical contributions to hurricane forecasting. I see no relevance to his recent ranting, including the one quoted in the thread-starter.

Esteemed skeptic and credible climatologist Richard Lindzen, of MIT, was quoted in the Washington Post "His knowledge of theory is frustratingly poor" (in a May 28, 2006 piece by Joel Achenbach, you have to pay to read it). That was more than three years ago, and there is ZERO evidence that Dr. Gray has improved his understanding.

Dr. William Shockley and Dr. James Watson were each highly respected scientists in their field who embarrassed themselves, their peers, and their institutions when they stepped outside their respective areas of expertise in their later years.

Reply: I do not think Gray is stepping that far out of his area of expertise.

Dr. Gray's rants, while not as incendiary as the racist garbage expressed by Dr. Shockley and then Dr. Watson, are still nonetheless embarrassingly incompetent. You do him no favor by publicizing them.

Brett:It is evident from your comment to Brookline Tom that you do not understand the depth of the Issue or the necessary understanding of Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry, with say a Climatologist, to come to value judgements like those made by your Climate Professor of your esteemed STATE university. Where s his peer reviewed paper in a Science Journal, not on another cheap blog on the internet. Watch and see what real time leaders do in Copenhagen. Not the bunch of denier cry babies with no science to work with. Merry Christmas,Kipp

Enginer | December 14, 2009 7:42 AM --- Protein content of wheat decreases with increasing CO2.

This sixth grader pretty much proves GISS US temperatures are corrupted by UHI

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/picking-out-the-uhi-in-global-temperature-records-so-easy-a-6th-grader-can-do-it/

I have to agree with BrooklineTom. Gray is a #@!, as is anyone who makes statements like:

"Gore believed in global warming almost as much as Hitler believed there was something wrong with the Jews."

or the self-absorbed...

"I don't think anybody in the world understands how the atmosphere functions better than me."

Brett,

If you can tear yourself away from the soap box of stolen emails for a few days, how about taking a look at one of the biggest annual conferences in climate science?

http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/

After covering the PR event of the Heartland Institute and 10 posts or more on "ClimateGate", other readers (who haven't ditched this blog) might be interested in observing what a real scientific conference looks like. See the link on the left panel for the scientific program (which also links to the 7 MB pdf). There are also webcasts of some of the lectures. One interesting presentation appears to be "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History" by Richard Alley.

Steve Easterbook has a nice commentary on a general science communication topic to kick it off:

http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/?cat=77

It's not as riveting as printing the opinion of every drooling crank regarding stolen emails, but some of the less zealous readers might appreciate a summary.

Reply: I will check it out Mark B. Actually Mark, from what I see, a lot of this info is for the geophysical science communitity, and it might be a bit too technical and long to keep interest with this blog.

The truth hurts, eh? There is no "anthropogenic" in "global warming" that is measurable or significant. There exists not a scrap of evidence that there is, and even the baseless "correlation equals causation" (which of course it does not) argument is based on cherry-picked, manipulated, garbage data. Sorry, eco-fascists, but "we haven't identified a cause other than CO2" is NOT evidence, much less proof, of anything - especially when you're going to great lengths to blind yourselves to the other causes.

From an AP press release one day ago:

"Q: Some people, including some in the U.S. Congress, don't trust the science predicting cataclysmic climate change. How do we know global warming is man-made and that it will lead to such cataclysmic upheaval?

A: The notion of warming comes from basic science: Carbon dioxide traps heat. CO2 has built up tremendously in the atmosphere, and temperatures are rising. The carbon buildup has occurred because of the explosion in fossil fuel use in our industrial age."

Shame on all of those scientists, including Dr. Gray, that don't know their basic science :)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-happened-to-the-evidence-for-man-made-global-warming.html

So what has happened to man made global warming? Below is a list of peer reviewed papers on different aspects of observations about our climate. MOst skeptics or deniers do not read the science. For an intelligent conservation, get to know the science and tell where you disagree.

�Our planet is suffering an energy imbalance and is steadily accumulating heat (Hansen 2005, Murphy 2009, Schuckmann 2009, Trenberth 2009)
�Animal and plant species are responding to earlier springs. Eg - earlier frog breeding, bird nesting, earlier flowering, earlier migration of birds and butterflies (Parmeson 2003)
�The distribution of tree lines, plants, birds, mammals, insects, fish, reptiles, marine invertebrates are shifting towards the poles (Parmeson 2003)
�Arctic permafrost is degrading (Anisimov 2006) plus warming at greater depths in the permafrost (Stieglitz 2003)
�Global sea level rise is accelerating (Church 2006)
�Antarctic ice loss is accelerating (Velicogna 2009), even from East Antarctica which was previously thought to be too stable to lose ice mass (Chen 2009)
�Greenland ice loss is accelerating (Velicogna 2009, van den Broeke et al 2009)
�Glaciers are shrinking globally at an accelerating rate (WGMS 2008)
�Arctic sea-ice loss is accelerating with the loss rate exceeding model forecasts by around a factor of 3 (Stroeve 2007).
�The height of the tropopause is increasing (Santer 2003, press release)
�Jet streams are moving poleward (Archer 2008, Seidel 2007, Fu 2006)
�The tropical belt is widening (Seidel 2007, Fu 2006)
�There is an increasing trend in record hot days versus record cold temperatures with currently twice as many record hot days than record cold temperatures (Meehle 2009, see press release).

What a waste of time.

Like it or not, you're gone get it - or the ROTW will drop support.

If you can't sell , can't buy, then you're doomed. That's the deal. You're in with the ROTW or you're out. If you choose to be out, then bye bye Joe six pack.

RP,

If the government chooses which technologies to support for renewable energy sources, based on historical examples, they will make a lot of very bad choices and actually delay progress (and at a high cost). If true free market forces are left alone (and they are not in the US), even though mistakes would be made, they are fast responding and self healing, and would eventually give the best response. For example, the US economic problems were primarily caused by government actions distorting the free market (forming Fanny and Freddy, and REQUIRING banks to make loans on homes that were not reasonable, which was not true free markets). The government could make funding available for research and support loans in some cases, and this would be helpful, but in the main they should keep out of the process.

Reply: "Dr. Gray is a respected atmospheric scientist with many years of experience Tom. In order to produce the long range tropical forecasts that he has done for years you need a great understanding of how the atmosphere works. Maybe he is off target in regards to GW, but you have to respect his opinion." Thank- you Brett, civility is much lacking in the climate debate. It has become less about science and more like Gallileo vs. the Catholic Church- AGW orthodoxy being the latter. Science used to be about knowledge and discovery, not closing the book after readin only one chapter and assuming we all know the 'truth'.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-happened-to-the-evidence-for-man-made-global-warming.html

So what has happened to man made global warming? Below is a list of peer reviewed papers on different aspects of observations about our climate. MOst skeptics or deniers do not read the science. For an intelligent conservation, get to know the science and tell where you disagree.

�Our planet is suffering an energy imbalance and is steadily accumulating heat (Hansen 2005, Murphy 2009, Schuckmann 2009, Trenberth 2009)
�Animal and plant species are responding to earlier springs. Eg - earlier frog breeding, bird nesting, earlier flowering, earlier migration of birds and butterflies (Parmeson 2003)
�The distribution of tree lines, plants, birds, mammals, insects, fish, reptiles, marine invertebrates are shifting towards the poles (Parmeson 2003)
�Arctic permafrost is degrading (Anisimov 2006) plus warming at greater depths in the permafrost (Stieglitz 2003)
�Global sea level rise is accelerating (Church 2006)
�Antarctic ice loss is accelerating (Velicogna 2009), even from East Antarctica which was previously thought to be too stable to lose ice mass (Chen 2009)
�Greenland ice loss is accelerating (Velicogna 2009, van den Broeke et al 2009)
�Glaciers are shrinking globally at an accelerating rate (WGMS 2008)
�Arctic sea-ice loss is accelerating with the loss rate exceeding model forecasts by around a factor of 3 (Stroeve 2007).
�The height of the tropopause is increasing (Santer 2003, press release)
�Jet streams are moving poleward (Archer 2008, Seidel 2007, Fu 2006)
�The tropical belt is widening (Seidel 2007, Fu 2006)
�There is an increasing trend in record hot days versus record cold temperatures with currently twice as many record hot days than record cold temperatures (Meehle 2009, see press release).

Bill V,

You have really got it upside down. AGW is a claimed hypothesis. The skeptics do not have to prove anything. The hypothesis has to have demonstrated falsifiable information uniquely associated with the hypothesis. Please state even one such piece of information. All such previous claims have either been falsified or or not provable either way. However a hypothesis can not use the argument "prove me wrong" as proof of anything!

Dr. Gray is a respected atmospheric scientist with many years of experience Tom. In order to produce the long range tropical forecasts that he has done for years you need a great understanding of how the atmosphere works. Maybe he is off target in regards to GW, but you have to respect his opinion.

REPLY: Oh, come now, Brett. You have to understand that guys like BT don't respect anyone's opinion unless it agrees with his own.
Mewhile, in Dopenhagen, it continues to come unglued:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/14/time-running-climate-change-negotiator-says/

LOVE IT!!!!! And Obama will show up to pat himself on the back. Just for showing up. LOL!!!! The joke that is THE FRAUD continues.

MMMMMMMMMMM....MMMMMMMMMMM.....MMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!

YES THE ARCTIC WAS ICE FREE BEFORE
YES MALE POLAR BEARS DO EAT CUBS
YES WE HAVE BEEN WARMING UP SINCE THE LAST ICE AGE
YES MONEY IS THE MOTIVE IN CLIMATE GATE
YES IF AL GORE BELIEVED IT! HE WOULD OF DONE SOMETHING WHEN HE WAS VP

Open your mouth once to often to lie and you will get a axe handle stuck into it. Time and time again Al Gore has done ball-faced lying about AGWm whether from his Inconvenient truth or as shown below:

AlGore poleaxed.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6956783.ece

There are many kinds of truth. Al Gore was poleaxed by an inconvenient one yesterday.

The former US Vice-President, who became an unlikely figurehead for the green movement after narrating the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, became entangled in a new climate change 'spin' row.

Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.

In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: "These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggeed to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years."

However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.

"It's unclear to me how this figure was arrived at," Dr Maslowski said. "I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this."

Mr Gore's office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a 'ballpark figure' several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.

The embarrassing error cast another shadow over the conference after the controversy over the hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, which appeared to suggest that scientists had manipulated data to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming.

Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist at the Massachusets Institute of Technology who does not believe that global warming is largely caused by man, said: "He's just extrapolated from 2007, when there was a big retreat, and got zero."

With the MSM asleep at the wheel, we still have to look at these UK to get these 'Inconvenient Truths'. Looks like this inconvenient truth turned around and bit old Lying Al on the butt.

BrooklineTom:
Why do you give this discredited crank front-page visibility?
This kind of bunk makes me rethink my participation with this site.
------------
Jeesh Brett, it looks like you forgot to submit your 12/13/2009 Opinions Choice to the "Brookline Tom Approved and Allowable Global Warming/Climate Change Special Persons Who Have the Appropriate Credentials (approved by Brookline Tom) List".

If you are not careful, we may never get his impeccable opinions and analysis to grace this site again! The horrors, the humanity!!

You know, this type of rant by BT and a few others
is the epitome of what Climategate is all about. If anyone dares to express his/her opinion or offer another viewpoint, well, it is "off with their heads", attack the person, censor anything that doesn't meet the AGW playbook, don't let them participate, etc.

Why would they (like BT) think this way if they felt their position was 100% correct and they were 100% in agreement with their work and opinion? When you know you are right, and the science will definitely back it up, who cares if there are detractors, or people with different opinions? Soon, they would be proven wrong anyway so why try to censor and attack the people personally? Why not just throw the facts at them and continue to prove how correct and perfect you are, huh BT?

This was expected.

U.N. climate chief turns carbon to green
In lucrative carbon trade 'all roads lead to Pachauri'

Head of the IPCC stands to make millions from Carbon Scams if only he can GreenWash ClimateGate.

Just doesn't get any better that this.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=119061

Oakden Wolf:

Already posted this once in a different thread when Gray's on-the-edge-of-nutcase ideas came up:

Gray and Muddy Thinking on Global Warming

Are you perhaps Gavin?

This is great.

http://sppiblog.org/videos/lord-monckton-addresses-a-greenpeace-campaigner-on-global-warming

GreenPeace Cult member admits to knowing nothing about what she is talking about and that she simply believes on faith what ever they tell her to believe.

typical AGW believer.

It is great that the old geezers step up to plate to save the world from enviro-communists.

Anonymous:
"Gray got the hurricane story right while Trenberth and the IPCC commentators were wrong. It is interesting how so many retired scientists (who no longer need to fight for grants) have spoken up to expose the very unscientific basis for the unsupported the AGW thesis."

I would rather hear the opinions of the old retired guys, than those presently employed in the environmental private sector, who's company's depend largely upon securing government contracts, grants, or marketting and advertising, for a good portion of their existance.

Who in their right mind would bite the hand that feeds them, by challenging the AGW dogma and policies of the EPA, the DOE, or universities for instance. The more these folks spout off against the sceptics, the more Benny Hill pats on the head, or atta boy's their companies get from the folks who control the purse strings, for having these kinds of dedicated to the cause people on staff. It's a good method to remain favorably on the contractor list, or maintain a sole source contractor relationship with government kingdoms.

It leaves me to think that whatever these folks say, may have a direct or indirect economic or professional enhancement agenda attached to it, and should be taken with a grain of salt, and that also applies to those presently dependant upon grants, contracts and studies from industry, as bias has never been known to be one sided, as I'm certain some folks on both sides of this blog can relate to.

RP-"Even if Dr. Gray is right about the climate, I have to strongly disagree with is predictions of economic doom because of a shift to renewable energy..."

idecline says- Good observation!

Oakden Wolf-"Yet another example of the termites swarming out of the woodwork, aided and abetted by the promulgators of disinformation, giving a soapbox to every voice with a stupid opinion to share, particularly if they have Ph.D. attached to their name to give it more weight with their gullible, exploited flock."

idecline says-Point- Counter point. You mean PHD's have biases and personal opinions? Who knew!

Doctor Dave-"This is a poll. Who would you be more likely to believe about whether AGW has a solid scientific basis - Dr. William Gray or Bill Nye the Science Guy?"

idecline says-Bill Nye, of course. Doctor Who?

Dr Science-"In other words, we may never be able to see the raw data from which the claims of the GW swine are derived. They should simply be flogged in public exhibition and exiled to South Georgia Island. The hubris of these people is beyond criminal."

idecline says- your response is neither Science nor Doctorly. It just shows how some 'scientists' let personal opinions get in the way of facts! Doctor Who 2 is what i'm calling you.

Why don't you read Hlinka's response to Mary. AGW'ers can play 'hardball' too!

Renewable energy is "nonsense". The ONLY WAY that we even consider it, is because that junk is paid about 70% by Federal Tax credits. This occurs in every single country it is constructed. What we are doing is saying, we know this stuff is so expensive that NO ONE would ever buy it, so let's just "hide" the bill on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren. No Person would ever build this stuff, ONLY a Government would be stupid enough to build it. It amazes me that so many capitalist and die-hard Republicans can't even figure out, that you can't create energy from dollar bills! They just don't make enough energy.

Gray states that the last century's global warming of about 1 degree F is not a consequence of human activities.

Reply: Six billion people have no effect on anything huh? Interesting.

This warming is primarily the result of a multi-century changes in the globe's deep ocean circulation.

Reply: Wait a minute, I thought it was the sun and orbital variations? Try to keep up there pop.

The recent 'ClimateGate' revelations coming out of the UK University of East Anglia are but the tip of a giant iceberg....

Reply: Iceberg....he said iceberg....ironic.

....of a well organized international climate warming conspiracy that has been gathering momentum for the last 25 years, according to Gray.

Reply: The moon landings were fake, JFK was killed by the CIA, Obama is really a socialist, commie pinko muslim...I hear helicopters...

Other points that Gray makes.........

Reply: There's more?

--There has been an unrelenting quarter century of one-sided indoctrination of the western world by the media and by various scientists and governments concerning a coming carbon dioxide (CO2) induced global warming disaster.

Reply: Then I guess Christy, Spencer, Anthony Watts and all of the other AGW questioning buffoons aren't that credible after all, huh Dr. Gray?

--Restricting CO_2 emissions from the present by as much as 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050 (as being proposed in Copenhagen) would cause very large increases in our energy costs,

Reply: Kinda like last year when Oil was over $150 dollars per barrel - for no other reason than GREED. Yeah, bad idea, switching to alternative forms of energy so that we are not held hostage by foreign countries that hate us.

....a lowering of our standard of living,

Reply: Kinda like 2008 and 2009, when millions of people lost their jobs, took pay cuts and had their hours cut while big oil companies reaped the rewards of higher prices and big corporations sent our jobs to China and reaped big rewards while we suffered. Kinda like Bush bailing out big banks while people lost their homes. You mean that standard of living right?

.....and do nothing of significance to improve our climate.

Reply: And he knows this because a little birdy told him so. Does he have any scientific studies to back this up? Or, do we just take his word for it?

--The global climate models predicting large amounts of global warming for a doubling of CO2 are badly flawed.

Reply: Lets all unplug our computers and go back to writing on stone tablets. Computers = bad.

By the by, it's cold here today. Brrr! Where is the heat? Still waiting for summer to begin, but it won't because comrade Obama is not doing anything to make summer start. If it wasn't for Pelosi and Ried, it would be summer here. Instead it is snowing and cold. I say vote them all out.

Oops, Beck is on Fox. Gotta goooo!

Toodles.

To Jeff Green....many of the climatologists on your long list of peer-reviewed articles are the perpetrators in this Climategate scandal...once they take an oath before a board of inquiry they will either have to admit to their wrongdoing or perjure themselves. Staying out of jail should be their first priority. Send them a list of good criminal lawyers.

idecline:
"Why don't you read Hlinka's response to Mary. AGW'ers can play 'hardball' too!"

------

You think "little old me" is playing "hardball"?? Now that is funny. I speak the truth, display evidence, and I am playing hardball.

Hlinka play hardball???? Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha!

As soon as I start drifting towards thinking that this man made global warming may have some merit, I read rants by Brookline Tom, MarkB, and Hlinka types, and whammo, I am back to being a "denier".

Thanks boys!

Mary:

I couldn't have said it any better. Why do they scream like a stuffed pig when you challenge their claims? Because GW is their religion and when you question their religion you stick a dagger in their soul. I know the type because my family was typical of this sect of society... facts were unimportant when it denegraded their cause.

Brett writes:

"Reply: I will check it out Mark B. Actually Mark, from what I see, a lot of this info is for the geophysical science communitity, and it might be a bit too technical and long to keep interest with this blog."

RC is covering it. The Steve Easterbrook discussion I linked is with regards to the communication gap between science and the public. One way to close this gap is to have those who are literate in science to report on scientific conferences and provide accurate condensed layperson summaries of key lectures. If you're not in SF, there are also a few webcasts. There are many interesting lectures on climate science topics. They don't have headlines like "global warming: fact or fiction?" or "is global warming a hoax?" that you might see at a Heartland Institute PR event or in the mainstream press.

I didn't think "nut" was a bad word (translated to "#@!" above). Scientists have been called worse things on this blog.

RP and Leonard Weinstein:
Thank you for your opposing views but converging on the key issue behind global warming -- energy use.

Leonard,
Would you object to a government initiative that transformed coal power plants into natural gas power plants? This would cut CO2 emissions by 50 to 70%.

Many other governments, including China, Germany, Denmark, etc. have made concerted efforts on green energy and are reaping huge competitive advantages. Can the US compete with countries who have well-planned industrial and energy policies?

Mary,

Let me inform you in the strongest of terms, that when I find it necessary to respond to your continual political rants (Fox Noise talking points) here, I take great offense that you then try to use my political responses to you as a reason to say that global warming has no merit. Political rants such as yours have nothing to do with the scientific debate of global warming and whether or not it has merit.

If and when you ever plan to actually debate real science with me here, I am ready, willing and able. Then we will see how much you really do not know about the merits of the science of global warming.

Glenn | December 15, 2009 10:17 AM --- Actually, it is science. Kindly read "The Discovery of Global Warming" by Spencer Weart:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

From the Imaginary Desk of a non-Knuckle Dragging Teabagger

REPLY:HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

By the by, it's cold here today. Brrr! Where is the heat? Still waiting for summer to begin, but it won't because comrade Obama is not doing anything to make summer start. If it wasn't for Pelosi and Ried, it would be summer here. Instead it is snowing and cold. I say vote them all out.

Oops, Beck is on Fox. Gotta goooo!

REPLY: OOOOHHHH baby baby baby, another leftist moonbat to thwart. Good, cause the original KNUCKLES IS HUNGRY. Bring it on, cauz I am waiting....MUUUUUWAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

A BIG LOVE AND KISSES from the center of the universe.

MMMMMMMMMMMM....MMMMMMMMMMMM......MMMMMMMMMMMMM

Does anyone know the current ability of climate models to treat water vapor / clouds? I'm pretty sure, but admit to not being an expert, that they treat it rather poorly if at all. Can someone confirm this? If it's the case, then I would have to say that we don't really have a "climate" model in existence. Just speculating.

Dear Squidly,

Go ahead, shoot the messenger. Doesn't change the message. An example:

A more serious problem is that Gray doesn't even understand that the greenhouse effect works primarily through the effect of greenhouse gases on the top of atmosphere radiation budget, and only very indirectly through the surface budget. This compromises almost all of his analysis. For example, many of the supposed changes in surface budget he describes could in fact be due indirectly to changes in greenhouse gases, via their affect on low level atmospheric temperature. By balancing a 4 W/m2 (top of atmosphere) CO2 radiative forcing against changes in evaporation, Gray concludes that the warming from doubling CO2 would be a mere two tenths of a degree C.. He ascribes the weak warming to the lack of water vapor feedback in his calculation, but in fact it is simply due to an incorrect calculation of the energy balance. Standard radiative physics based on a correct treatment of the top-of-atmosphere balance -- physics going back at least to Arrhenius -- yields a surface warming of about 1C in response to a doubling of CO2, when water vapor feedback is neglected. Gray has committed the major blunder of applying that 4 W/m2 top of atmosphere forcing at the surface. In reality, when that radiative forcing is properly applied at the top of the atmosphere, it leads to a warming of the entire atmospheric column which, at the surface, yields a far larger perturbation in the surface energy budget...

If YOU want credibility, go ahead and defend Gray's science. Otherwise, you're just taking ineffective potshots, and Gray remains a victim of emeritus-itis. (Ohh, and skeptics love to attack Al Gore when they're aren't very many Atlantic hurricanes; how come they don't attack hurricane-predictor Gray when his forecast is way off, as in this year? I thought he was an expert.)

Am I Gavin? I should be so lucky, or so intelligent. I think for myself, with as much wattage as my poor little brain cells can generate.

MarkB - Brett is just admitting that this blog is for entertainment purposes only. No scientific understanding is required. Thanks for the info though.

We the people, the patriots in the Leftist Moonbat Sect of America, contrary to popular mythic beliefs, embrace facts. We love facts. Scientific facts. It is our sect that constantly uses facts to flog the denizens of propaganda at every turn. Even at this blog. We must not give up the fight. Please keep up the good patriotic fight. Do not let Mary and other members of the Ostrich Club thwart our efforts to promote truth and justice.

Speaking of entertainemnt....Oiznop, aka Knuckle Head, now that is entertainment at it's best. Keep up the good work Oiznop ol' buddy.

Tonight at eleven, Obama, Pelosi and Reid in,

The Three Headed Monster Attacks Pittsburgh.

They're coming to get ya Oiznop!

It really is amazing how Brett keeps you around Oiz. Must be for the entertainment value, because you never have anything constructive to say. Always off topic and mighty colorful. Do you get paid to do this?

Toodles.

"Mary:

As soon as I start drifting towards thinking that this man made global warming may have some merit, I read rants by Brookline Tom, MarkB, and Hlinka types, and whammo, I am back to being a "denier".

Thanks boys!"

You should think about that statement Mary. You are letting a "rant" by someone you obviously don't respect affect your belief system. Not a good idea. Whether for or against, this does not speak very highly of you.

Gary,

I have nothing against you in particular, but unfortunately I am picking on you today.

"Gary:

Head of the IPCC stands to make millions from Carbon Scams if only he can GreenWash ClimateGate."

I see this argument alot towards many people who support AGW. If you believe in the value of something, then you tend to want to invest in it. Thats the free market at work baby. Maybe they see things heading in this direction and want to make money when it gets there. Despite trying to save the world, they need to make a living as well. I got great returns on my solar power stocks (before the crash). I saw public opinion heading in that direction and thought "hey I could make some money on this". Does that make little ol' me part of the conspiracy? No it does not."

"Gary:

GreenPeace Cult member admits to knowing nothing about what she is talking about and that she simply believes on faith what ever they tell her to believe.

typical AGW believer."

This girl is obviously misguided. This was not worth mentioning. Do us all a favor and don't lump everyone into one category. I don't do it to you.

"Gary:

Therefore the return on investment is 3%. Or for every dollar spent three cents of value is gained."

I do not accept these figures Gary. I don't think anyone does.

"Gary:

Science will be decades recovering credibility because of the AGW Fraud."

Credibility with whom? The people that don't listen to AGW science anyway? Then don't use science (however bad the science may be) to argue your point.

You are a good guy Gary, but sometimes that ends up in your blogs is inconthevabol :)

Climate change is supported by millions of data points worldwide drawn from atmospheric, oceanic and land temperatures. The fact that a small cabal of fraudulent scientists cooked their data does nothing to change the fact. The extent to which climate change is due to anthropogenic forces is still a matter open to question. However, to pretend that we shouldn't be concerned is simply short-sighted, and driven simply by politics.

It';s rather wearying, actually. I myself am a scientist. I hold a Ph.D. from UC Berkeley grounded in molecular evolution. This whole debate reminds me of the never ending controversy surrounding evolution. Yes, you can find a tiny minority of biologists who naysay evolution, but they are driven by their political and spiritual beliefs, not by scientific evidence. This debate over climate change also reminds me of the handful of revisionist historians who now claim that the Holocaust never happened. Once again, scientific evidence means nothing when it conflicts with political and religious bigotry. In fact, I'll wager more than a few of your crowing climate change deniers also profess a disbelief in evolution and the Holocaust. It's all very sad, because I have children and will soon be a grand father and I worry every day about the kind of world we're leaving after us.

Granted that we still don't know the full extent of climate change due to human activities, I ask you does it really matter? We know that CO2 and methane are potent greenhouse gases. We know that we are raising the content of both gasses significantly in the atmosphere. Is it really prudent to continue to pollute when we know full well that at some point the tipping point will be reached. Even if the current change was begun by natural processes, do we really want to accelerate the process?

As for renewable energy sources, there simply is no debate here. The Age of Oil will be but a blip on the radar screen of human history, lasting less than 150 years, even if we are lucky. By the end of this century, there simply won't be any substantial resources left and those that remain will no doubt be the trigger for increasing international tension, if not all out war. Our national security is at stake and the sooner we realize it the better. Imagine all the resources that could be redirected from the cost of military engagements abroad if we no longer had to worry about access to mideast oil? Imagine the economic boom that would result from the further development of hydrothermal, wind, biofuel and nuclear energy that would not only sustain our energy independence, but also provide valuable technology that could be sold abroad.

Raymond;

Pile it higher and deeper.
You seem to suggest that a PHD means something.

It doesn't except in the minds of the holders.

Your arguments don't wash.

There is no evidence of AGW.

and If energy security is that critical, then make the case based on that and stop with the lying about CO2.

Oh, Raymond, Raymond, Raymond. I am a AGW skeptic and I do accept as a well-established theory, evolution. A bit of a low blow calling skeptics Holocaust deniers. So much for my hope in the maturity of molecular biologists. I'm only a lowly physicist, so certainly do not know the secret handshake of true scientists like yourself.

I too, however, can make analogies. AGW priests remind of those who used to say, "of course bleeding is the only way to cure this", or "well yeah, heat flows through caloric", or how about this little bon mot,"light travels through ether 'there is simply no debate here'"

I asked a question earlier trying to keep it to science, but the Holocaust assertion could not be left with no response. Your bigotry behind that claim is too sad.

Look, I find the observational evidence to be very compelling in regard to warming but the models to be trivial. I'm not saying that the people working on these are not intelligent, just that to model climate with the fidelity to make their claims to be more than a bit overreaching.

Anonymous,
"Thats the free market at work baby. Maybe they see things heading in this direction and want to make money when it gets there."

Or...maybe they have the influence to make things head in that direction, so they can make money when they get it there, at the expense of the taxpayer.

Is that all you've got, TEABAGGER? Pretty lame. Oh, by the by. Anderson Cooper called. He want's his copyright of the term TEABAGGER back. As well as his environmentally friendly latex jeans. You sly puppy, you!.....ROFLMAO!!!!!!

MMMMMMMM.....MMMMMMMMM.....MMMMMMMMMM

Ron | December 15, 2009 10:50 PM --- Both water vapor and clouds treated quite well in GMs:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/faq-on-climate-models-part-ii/langswitch_lang/tk

Raymond Cranfill:

"This debate over climate change also reminds me of the handful of revisionist historians who now claim that the Holocaust never happened."

I don't imagine you actually believe what you stated, but if you do, how sad and narrow minded.

David,
While I am glad that they do indeed consider water vapor, I saw nothing to indicate that they handle it "quite well". I thought their statements on it were refreshingly restrained, actually. Certainly far different from the claims typically made by others regarding "the science is settled".

I was very distressed to ask this question on another forum and receive an answer from an AGW person, who happens to be an environmental scientist, that said "the science doesn't matter". Huh? That makes me appreciate the undramatic RC description even more so. Your enhancement I do not appreciate.

The following are from the RC discussion. Please, RC was straightforward, but your description of "quite well" is BS. I don't like being BS'd.

"...none of this is to say that clouds are a done deal, they certainly aren’t"

"There are certainly questions about how realistic those clouds are and whether they have the right sensitivity"

"Cloud parameterisations are amongst the most complex in the models"

It seems fairly possible that the #1 GHG still is not well understood.

Without commenting on every spew of BS that you just put forth, Raymond, as I don't have the time because some of us in the REAL WORLD work for a living, I will say this:

Raymond Cranfill says: "I hold a Ph.D. from UC Berkeley...."

REPLY: That really speaks volumes, doesn't it ladies and gents?????......What a CROCK!!!!!

Love and Kisses from your favorite DENIER OF THE FRAUD,

Knuckles.

"The fact is we can't account for the LACK OF WARMING at the moment and it's travesty that we can't."

MMMMMMMMMMMMMM.....MMMMMMMMMMMM.....MMMMMMMMMMMM........

"Jeff Green:

�Our planet is suffering an energy imbalance and is steadily accumulating heat (Hansen 2005, Murphy 2009, Schuckmann 2009, Trenberth 2009)
�Animal and plant species are responding to earlier springs. Eg - earlier frog breeding, bird nesting, earlier flowering, earlier migration of birds and butterflies (Parmeson 2003)
�The distribution of tree lines, plants, birds, mammals, insects, fish, reptiles, marine invertebrates are shifting towards the poles (Parmeson 2003)
�Arctic permafrost is degrading (Anisimov 2006) plus warming at greater depths in the permafrost (Stieglitz 2003)
�Global sea level rise is accelerating (Church 2006)
�Antarctic ice loss is accelerating (Velicogna 2009), even from East Antarctica which was previously thought to be too stable to lose ice mass (Chen 2009)
�Greenland ice loss is accelerating (Velicogna 2009, van den Broeke et al 2009)
�Glaciers are shrinking globally at an accelerating rate (WGMS 2008)
�Arctic sea-ice loss is accelerating with the loss rate exceeding model forecasts by around a factor of 3 (Stroeve 2007).
�The height of the tropopause is increasing (Santer 2003, press release)
�Jet streams are moving poleward (Archer 2008, Seidel 2007, Fu 2006)
�The tropical belt is widening (Seidel 2007, Fu 2006)
�There is an increasing trend in record hot days versus record cold temperatures with currently twice as many record hot days than record cold temperatures (Meehle 2009, see press release)."

What you have here is evidence that:

1. The earth's temperature changes.

2. Plants and animals react to a changing environment.

3. Frozen ground sometimes thaws.

4. Sea levels change.

5. Sea ice sometimes melts.

6. Glaciers sometimes melt.

7. Climate models have a predictive value not significantly different from zero.

8. The atmosphere is not a fixed vessel, and its size changes.

9. The jet stream moves.

10. The "tropics" are not fixed in size.

11. Urban heat islands, coupled with a loss of many genuinely rural temperature stations, results in more "record high" temperature readings and less "record low" temperature readings.

WHAT YOU DON'T HAVE HERE:

ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT HUMAN ACTIVITY HAS ANYTHING MEASURABLE OR SIGNIFICANT TO DO WITH IT!

Climate changes - ALL THE TIME.

None of the changes being observed today is outside of the rate or range of past climate variability.

No comprehensive multi-disciplined SCIENTIFIC study has been made of the complete range of factors that influence Earth's climate, because too much time, energy and money has been squandered on the CO2 fetish. Until we have something that vaguely resembles a complete understanding of climate and what factors influence it, and what the interplay of all of those factors is, calling the result "science" is like calling blood letting "state of the art" medicine.

So-called "climate science" is in its infancy. Until we have identified a real (as opposed to computer-generated fantasy) problem, there is no call for grotesquely expensive "action."

Correction/Clarification: Has anything measurable or significant to do with "global climate change" (obviously, human activity is the cause of Urban Heat Island effects, but those, in turn have nothing measurable or significant to do with "global climate change").

Sorry to be so late in arriving at this discussion. I've been busy.

As usual, Alarmists have pounded this grand old man. I think what really bugs them is that old Dr. Gray is right about stuff.

Back in the 1980's, when Hansen was predicting an ice age, Dr. Gray stated that there would be warming. Gray was right and Hansen was wrong, but for some reason, (perhaps due to Gore becoming VP,) Hansen was rewarded for his incorrectness as Dr. Gray was frustrated in his efforts to gain funding.

Hansen then switched over to predicting warming, but Dr. Gray stated the warming was only a cycle, and cooling would return. It now looks like once again Dr. Gray was right and Hansen was wrong.

It is my understanding that NASA turned down eight separate requests from Dr. Gray for the funding needed to research the AMO and other cycles. He wanted to better understand components such as Thermohaline Circulation, but instead we have spent millions, perhaps billions, on having Hansen fudge surface temperature data and build computer models which don't work.

Originally I felt that Dr. Gray was perhaps too bitter about how funding was allotted, but the revelations of Climategate now show he, if anything, likely understated how badly the rot of politics had infiltrated the science at NASA.

The most ironic thing of all is watching Hansen awake to the fact he has been a dupe, used by the likes of Gore. When Hansen was collecting $350,000 from the wife of Senator John Kerry, (D MA,) he may have actually thought they cared about his crusade, but they didn't and they don't. All the compromises Hansen made for money and power are coming back to haunt him, as he is reduced to selling his book on late night talk shows.

Dr. Gray didn't compromise, and he has paid the political price. Irascible, hot-tempered, out-spoken, and as honest as the day is long, he annoys the heck out of Alarmists. However Alarmists strain at a gnat while swallowing a camel, when they pick on old Dr. Gray. Soon they too will awake to the facts Hansen is awaking to.

RP, come on, what sort of "energy professional" are you? What is that, code for a Green Peace lawyer?

Don't you think if "renewables" were feasible we would be using them by now? They will become a small part of our portfolio, but you can't even meet today's energy demands with renewables, much less 2050 demands. Explain to us all laymen energy buffs how renewables is going to create near the amount of jobs the energy business now has, and what % of renewables is in use today. You want to get serious about renewables, get Obama to lift the taxes on Brazilian Sugar cane fuel. Your computer, the internet, 1/2 half the cars you drive, half of your houses and daily products are all made from oil. Explain to us all why that is a bad thing please? If the United States tomorrow went completely off oil, what would happen in 12 months time? China, Indonesia and Indonesia would take up the slack. China is putting an average of 100,000 cars a month (before downturn) on the roads. Do you think the Chinese will switch to golf carts with you? All we need is a bridge to get to when Plasma Fusion is commercialized, about 2035 to 2040, and then we can really get serious about electrical motors. Until then, we are on hydrocarbons of one sort or another. And don't give us the Peak Oil baloney either. North America has more oil in the form of shales and sands than Saudi, which we have barely tapped into. Gas Hydrates, frozen gas close to sea beds, has not even been touched yet, and there are vast quantities of this energy source. A small cube of which can power a normal house (not Al Gore's mansions) for a year with clean energy. We are just now developing the Bakken play which covers several states, to show you the enormous area this play covers, due to new horizontal drilling and fracturing techniques. It is light easily refinable crude. Which is most likely why your crowd is trying to Lawyer and Congress up to stop the development of the Bakken play.

But hey, we will give you a chance. Tell us what the rest of the worlds hasn't figured out how to do yet, run the world of today and tomorrow with renewables based on today's technologies and the ones around the corner. Inquiring minds want to know how.

Kip Albert, I watched all the real leaders in Jokenhagen, all the Looters, The Moochers, the Whiners. They all got their buuuutocks frozen off, save the Iguanas! An Ice Age Cometh now!

Here ya go Kip and all you AGW Kool-aid drinkers;

Here is Atlas Shrugged from 1957 and current events from today for your comparison.

Today's real current events;

Back in the 1980's, when Dr.James Hansen [NASA GISS data base fame] was predicting an ice age, Dr. Gray stated that there would be warming. Gray was right and Hansen was wrong, but for some reason, (perhaps due to Gore becoming VP,) Hansen was rewarded for his incorrectness as Dr. Gray was frustrated in his efforts to gain funding.

Hansen then switched over to predicting warming, but Dr. Gray stated the warming was only a cycle, and cooling would return. It now looks like once again Dr. Gray was right and Hansen was wrong.

It is my understanding that NASA turned down eight separate requests from Dr. Gray for the funding needed to research the AMO and other cycles. He wanted to better understand components such as Thermohaline Circulation, but instead we have spent millions, perhaps billions, on having Hansen fudge surface temperature data and build computer models which don't work.

Originally I felt that Dr. Gray was perhaps too bitter about how funding was allotted, but the revelations of Climategate now show he, if anything, likely understated how badly the rot of politics had infiltrated the science at NASA.

The most ironic thing of all is watching Hansen awake to the fact he has been a dupe, used by the likes of Gore. When Hansen was collecting $350,000 from the wife of Senator John Kerry, (D MA,) he may have actually thought they cared about his crusade, but they didn't and they don't. All the compromises Hansen made for money and power are coming back to haunt him, as he is reduced to selling his book on late night talk shows.

Dr. Gray didn't compromise, and he has paid the political price. Irascible, hot-tempered, out-spoken, and as honest as the day is long, he annoys the heck out of Alarmists. However Alarmists strain at a gnat while swallowing a camel, when they pick on old Dr. Gray. Soon they too will awake to the facts Hansen is awaking to.

Part II, Chapter 1, Atlas Shrugged, Circa 1957

The Title of the Book�s jacket was �Why Do You Think You Think?�.[ The book was written by Dr. Floyd Ferris and published by the State Science Institute.]
from the book....
�Thought is a primitive superstition. Reason is an irrational idea. The childish notion that we are able to think has been mankind�s costliest error.�
�The more we know, the more we learn we know nothing.�
�Only the crassest ignoramus can still hold to the old fashioned notion that seeing is believing. That which you see is the first thing to disbelieve.�
�The latest scientific discoveries-such as the tremendous achievements of Dr. Robert Stadler-have demonstrated conclusively that our reason is incapable of dealing with the nature of the universe. These discoveries have led scientists to discoveries which are impossible, according to the human mind, but which exist in reality nonetheless. If you have not yet heard it, my dear old fashioned friends, it has now been proved that rational is insane.�
�Do not look for common sense.� To demand �sense� is the hallmark of nonsense. Let us break the chains of the prejudice called Logic. Are we going to be stopped by a syllogism?�
�So you think you are sure of your opinions? You cannot be sure of anything. Are you going to endanger the harmony of your community, your fellowship with your neighbors, your standing, reputation, good name and financial security for the sake of an illusion? For the sake of the mirage of thinking you think? Are you going to run the risks of court disasters-at a precarious time like ours-by opposing the existing social order in the name of those imaginary notions of yours which you call convictions? You say that you�re sure you�re right? Nobody is right, or ever can be. You feel the world around you is wrong? You have no means to know it! Everything is wrong in human eyes-so why fight it? Don�t argue. Accept. Adjust your self. Obey.�

Obey Obey, Obey Obey....Sounds like a Soccer song...good luck getting your Lattes warm in the Ice Age! Ciao....