[_ Old Earth _] Climate change

[brewmama]

No, I'm pointing out that the models accurately predict what happens in a warming climate. Weather becomes more extreme and predictable. As you now see, increased snowfall in winter is a prediction of warming, and in fact, this is what was observed during the regional climate warming caused by humans in the Dust Bowl.

Maybe some do, but some don't. Convenient. They're all over the place, as I posted much earlier. That way, no matter what happens, they can blame it on climate change.

So much for your "increased snowfall in winter is a prediction of warming"

March 2000, for example, “senior research scientist” David Viner, working at the time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, told the U.K. Independent that within “a few years,” snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he was quoted as claiming in the article, headlined “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.

In early 2004, the CRU’s Viner and other self-styled “experts” warned that skiing in Scotland would soon become just a memory, thanks to alleged global warming.

New York Times writer Peter Fox took to the editorial pages to pen an op-ed called the “End of Snow” which argued that global warming meant that there could be no more snowy areas to hold future Winter Olympic games.

Environmentalists predicted the end of spring snowfall. In March 2013, the Union of Concerned Scientists predicted that warmer springs would mean declines in snow cover. (Hey! That's your group!)

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/04/top-5-failed-snow-free-and-ice-free-predictions/#ixzz47qFxj8Wn
Adam Watson with the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, told the paper that the skiing industry in Scotland had less than two decades left to go.

The IPCC has also been relentlessly hyping the snowless winter scare, along with gullible or agenda-driven politicians. In its 2001 Third Assessment Report, for example, the IPCC claimed “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms.”

After the outlandish predictions of snowless winters failed to materialize, the CRU dramatically changed its tune on snowfall. Edited All across Britain, in fact, global-warming alarmists rushed to blame the record cold and heavy snow experienced in recent years on — you guessed it! — global warming. Less snow: global warming. More snow: global warming. Get it? Good.

 

[brewmama]

At the time, Hanson was working for NASA.

As for the lunatic you admire so much, Hansen,

"NASA’s James Hansen gets dissed by global warming establishment! Warmists Say Sea Level Rise study based on ‘flimsy evidence’ & ‘rife with speculation’"
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/07...sed-on-flimsy-evidence-rife-with-speculation/
Even cagwistas won't support him.

NASA scientist James E. Hansen, who has publicly criticized the Bush administration for dragging its feet on climate change and labeled skeptics of man-made global warming as distracting "court jesters," appears in a 1971 Washington Post article that warns of an impending ice age within 50 years.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/19/nasa-scientists-predicted-new-ice-age-1971
Hmm, I thought you said that real scientists did NOT predict global cooling in the 70s!

Spectacularly Poor Climate Science At NASA
Dr. James Hansen of NASA, has been the world’s leading promoter of the idea that the world is headed towards “climate disaster.” There is little evidence to back this up.

In 2008, Hansen wrote about “stabilizing” the climate :
Stabilizing atmospheric CO2 and climate requires that net CO2 emissions approach zero, because of the long lifetime of CO2

arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf

Yet in 1999, he made it quite clear that past climate was not stable, and that there was little evidence to support that idea that the climate was becoming unstable.
Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s “Dust Bowl” that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/spectacularly-poor-climate-science-at-nasa/


Right Stuff: NASA Scientists Weigh In to Undo Hansen Damage with Balance-of-Evidence Summation
“We were motivated by the public and political controversy fostered by alarming predictions of impending catastrophic anthropogenic global warming [at] NASA …. Many of us felt these alarming and premature predictions … would eventually damage NASA’s reputation for excellent and objective science and engineering achievement.”
-----------------
In a Jan. 29, 2006, New York Times interview Hansen charged that NASA public relations people had pressured him to allow them to review future public lectures, papers and postings on the GISS website. Yet in January 15, 2009 testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works-Minority Committee, his former boss John S. Theon, retired chief of NASA’s Climate Processes Research Program, took issue with the interference charge, stating: “Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen has embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claim of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress.”

NOAA and NASA have both received legal Freedom of Information Act requests for unadjusted data and documentation of all adjustments they have made in order to assess the reliability of their reports in keeping with a Data Quality Act requiring that any published data must be able to be replicated by independent audits. And both have resisted these requests despite promises of transparency and the fact that together they receive nearly a billion dollars in direct annual government climate research funding.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...ard-institute-for-space-studies/#58d95867288e

 

[Barbarian]

As for the lunatic you admire so much, Hansen,

"NASA’s James Hansen gets dissed by global warming establishment! Warmists Say Sea Level Rise study based on ‘flimsy evidence’ & ‘rife with speculation’"
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/07...sed-on-flimsy-evidence-rife-with-speculation/

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/07...sed-on-flimsy-evidence-rife-with-speculation/

Nevertheless, it is already notable that a group of prominent scientists — not just Hansen, but also his 16 co-authors, working in fields, such as glaciology, oceanography, and paleo-climatology (or the study of the climates of past planetary eras) — are worried that sea level rise of more than 1 meter is a threat this century. Now, the question becomes to what extent the broader scientific community does — or does not — agree.


In the end, that process could very well lead many researchers to seek out a middle ground. In fact, some already have.


“There is no doubt that the sea level rise, within the IPCC, is a very conservative number,” says Greg Holland, a climate and hurricane researcher at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, who has also reviewed the Hansen study. “So the truth lies somewhere between IPCC and Jim.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...sea-level-rise-paper-is-now-published-online/

NASA scientist James E. Hansen

, who has publicly criticized the Bush administration for dragging its feet on climate change and labeled skeptics of man-made global warming as distracting "court jesters," appears in a 1971 Washington Post article that warns of an impending ice age within 50 years.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/19/nasa-scientists-predicted-new-ice-age-1971

Even your article doesn't say Hanson predicted cooling. It says someone took his model for temperature change on Venus, and tried to apply it to Earth. Gee, what could have gone wrong...

Hmm, I thought you said that real scientists did NOT predict global cooling in the 70s!

As you know, that's not what I showed you. I showed you that even in the 70s, the vast majority of scientists (including Hanson) saw warming coming. Correctly, it turns out. Would you like me to show you that, again?

I don't think that you realized that the article was dishonest. I think you were so eager to make some kind of point, you just cut and pasted it without thinking very much about it. Let's look at another one of those...

In a Jan. 29, 2006, New York Times interview Hansen charged that NASA public relations people had pressured him to allow them to review future public lectures, papers and postings on the GISS website. Yet in January 15, 2009 testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works-Minority Committee, his former boss John S. Theon, retired chief of NASA’s Climate Processes Research Program, took issue with the interference charge, stating: “Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen has embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claim of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress.”

Well, let's see what Theon's scientists say about that...

In January 2006, Dr. Hansen told Andrew Revkin of the New York Times that he was warned of "dire consequences" if he continued to make similar statements. Revkin reported that George Deutsch, a public affairs officer appointed by the White House, denied a request from National Public Radio to interview Dr. Hansen, calling NPR the country's "most liberal" media outlet and arguing that his job was "to make the president look good."4 Mr. Deutsch later resigned after it was revealed that he had fabricated his own academic credentials.5


Arguing that his loyalty was to NASA's mission statement, which then read in part "to understand and protect our home planet," Dr. Hansen refused to be silenced. ''Communicating with the public seems to be essential,'' the Times reported him as saying, ''because public concern is probably the only thing capable of overcoming the special interests that have obfuscated the topic."6


Dr. Hansen's public stand helped to bring about reforms of NASA's public relations policy. In February 2006, after the widely publicized allegations of censorship, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin issued an agency-wide statement clarifying that the role of public affairs officers was not "to alter, filter or adjust engineering or scientific material produced by NASA's technical staff."7 This statement was followed, on March 30, by an official new NASA media policy, which supports principles of openness.8

However in February 2006, the phrase "to understand and protect our home planet" was deleted from NASA's mission statement without any notification to agency scientists.
http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/cent...moting-scientific-integrity/james-hansen.html
Washington Post
April 6, 2006

Scientists doing climate research for the federal government say the Bush administration has made it hard for them to speak forthrightly to the public about global warming. The result, the researchers say, is a danger that Americans are not getting the full story on how the climate is changing.

Employees and contractors working for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, along with a U.S. Geological Survey scientist working at an NOAA lab, said in interviews that over the past year administration officials have chastised them for speaking on policy questions; removed references to global warming from their reports, news releases and conference Web sites; investigated news leaks; and sometimes urged them to stop speaking to the media altogether. Their accounts indicate that the ideological battle over climate-change research, which first came to light at NASA, is being fought in other federal science agencies as well.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...ard-institute-for-space-studies/#58d95867288e

NOAA and NASA have both received legal Freedom of Information Act requests

See above. At least one top Bush appointee lost his job over the attempt to muzzle scientists, after FOIA requests showed that scientists' claims of political pressure to downplay warming were correct..

The documentation is public record. Indeed, the data has been used by deniers in vain attempts to make it appear that the world is not warming. The most publicized attempt was to show that many stations were placed to make them warmer than they might otherwise be.

The attempt failed when it was shown that the "bad" stations were actually somewhat cooler than nearby "good" stations. Would you like to learn about that?

You've let yourself be gulled by the more extreme of deniers. If they won't be honest with you about things like this, why would you trust them at all?

 

[brewmama]

Nevertheless, it is already notable that a group of prominent scientists — not just Hansen, but also his 16 co-authors, working in fields, such as glaciology, oceanography, and paleo-climatology (or the study of the climates of past planetary eras) — are worried that sea level rise of more than 1 meter is a threat this century. Now, the question becomes to what extent the broader scientific community does — or does not — agree.
In the end, that process could very well lead many researchers to seek out a middle ground. In fact, some already have.
“There is no doubt that the sea level rise, within the IPCC, is a very conservative number,” says Greg Holland, a climate and hurricane researcher at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, who has also reviewed the Hansen study. “So the truth lies somewhere between IPCC and Jim.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...sea-level-rise-paper-is-now-published-online/

So all you have is model projections, all over the board. And what we have in reality are things like this:

As PSMSL says “Please note that we changed the method of calculating relative sea level trends in 2015. The trends displayed here are not directly comparable with any calculated before that date.” So, we will focus only on this survey.

The survey includes 722 tide gauges, some of them having not enough data to infer any reliable trend. The global data set has a naïve average rate of rise of 1.39 mm/year, maximum value of +10.25 mm/year and minimum value of -17.63 mm/year...
The longer subsets may serve to assess the presence (or absence) of an acceleration, as the relative sea level rates of rise become significant only after the minimum 60 years of data are recorded. The different values only reflect the different populations, with more tide gauges recently being established in areas subject to subsidence rather than uplift. The subsidence of the instrument is still the most relevant component to sea level rise.

What do we learn from this survey? The sea levels are not rising, but rising and falling. And in the best “spots” along the world coastlines where the sea level rises are measured and not computed, the naïve average rate of rise is a pretty constant value and a quite small value.

These naïve average relative rate of rise translate in a naïve average sea level rise over the first 15 years of this century no matter the anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission of a little bit less than half a millimetre to little bit more than one millimetre in the 158 or the 157 long term tide gauges S1 and S2, or at the most in 6 millimetres in the 212 tide gauges S3 satisfying the minimum requirement of 60 years to infer a reliable trend.

The naïve average is practically zero, somewhere the sea level rise, somewhere else the sea level falls. We do not need more and more layers of bureaucrats and more and more taxes with the excuse to save the world from the rising seas because we burn carbon and hydrocarbon fuels.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/19/sea-level-rise-plenty-of-time-for-noah-to-build-the-ark/

Even your article doesn't say Hanson predicted cooling. It says someone took his model for temperature change on Venus, and tried to apply it to Earth. Gee, what could have gone wrong...
As you know, that's not what I showed you. I showed you that even in the 70s, the vast majority of scientists (including Hanson) saw warming coming. Correctly, it turns out. Would you like me to show you that, again?
I don't think that you realized that the article was dishonest. I think you were so eager to make some kind of point, you just cut and pasted it without thinking very much about it.

You are correct. It was 2 other NASA scientists predicting global cooling.

 

[brewmama]

"Yet in January 15, 2009 testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works-Minority Committee, his former boss John S. Theon, retired chief of NASA’s Climate Processes Research Program, took issue with the interference charge, stating: “Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen has embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claim of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress.”

Well, let's see what Theon's scientists say about that...

In January 2006, Dr. Hansen told Andrew Revkin of the New York Times that he was warned of "dire consequences" if he continued to make similar statements. Revkin reported that George Deutsch, a public affairs officer appointed by the White House, denied a request from National Public Radio to interview Dr. Hansen, calling NPR the country's "most liberal" media outlet and arguing that his job was "to make the president look good."4 Mr. Deutsch later resigned after it was revealed that he had fabricated his own academic credentials.5
Arguing that his loyalty was to NASA's mission statement, which then read in part "to understand and protect our home planet," Dr. Hansen refused to be silenced. ''Communicating with the public seems to be essential,'' the Times reported him as saying, ''because public concern is probably the only thing capable of overcoming the special interests that have obfuscated the topic."6
Dr. Hansen's public stand helped to bring about reforms of NASA's public relations policy. In February 2006, after the widely publicized allegations of censorship, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin issued an agency-wide statement clarifying that the role of public affairs officers was not "to alter, filter or adjust engineering or scientific material produced by NASA's technical staff."7 This statement was followed, on March 30, by an official new NASA media policy, which supports principles of openness.8
However in February 2006, the phrase "to understand and protect our home planet" was deleted from NASA's mission statement without any notification to agency scientists.
http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/cent...moting-scientific-integrity/james-hansen.html
Washington Post
April 6, 2006

So basically, when you say "what scientists say," it means what James Hansen said. And, as you yourself just said, "Dr. Hansen refused to be silenced." So his complaint seems ludicrous and extreme, especially considering what his peers have said about him.

Scientists doing climate research for the federal government say the Bush administration has made it hard for them to speak forthrightly to the public about global warming. The result, the researchers say, is a danger that Americans are not getting the full story on how the climate is changing.

ROFL! Americans not getting the full AGW story?? That's really funny! However, you are absolutely correct, because they certainly aren't getting the full skeptic story.


(more to come...)

 

[brewmama]

Employees and contractors working for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, along with a U.S. Geological Survey scientist working at an NOAA lab, said in interviews that over the past year administration officials have chastised them for speaking on policy questions; removed references to global warming from their reports, news releases and conference Web sites; investigated news leaks; and sometimes urged them to stop speaking to the media altogether. Their accounts indicate that the ideological battle over climate-change research, which first came to light at NASA, is being fought in other federal science agencies as well.

Hansen’s high profile global warming alarmism and related energy policy statements fall far outside his official Civil Service job role. It was correct to try and reign him in. As his peers said, he is an embarrassment.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/07/19/nasas-inconvenient-ruse-the-goddard-institute-for-space-studies/#58d95867288e

The documentation is public record. Indeed, the data has been used by deniers in vain attempts to make it appear that the world is not warming. The most publicized attempt was to show that many stations were placed to make them warmer than they might otherwise be.

Maybe you should actually read the Forbes article. Here's more from it:

"Dr. Ruedy of GISS confessed in an email that “[the United States Historical Climate Network] data are not routinely kept up-to-date, and in another that NASA had inflated its temperature data since 2000 on a questionable basis. “NASA’s assumption that the adjustments made the older data consistent with future data…may not have been correct”, he said. “Indeed, in 490 of the 1,057 stations the USHCN data was up to 1 C degree colder than the corresponding GHCN data, in 77 stations the data was the same, and in the remaining 490 stations the USHCN data was warmer than the GHCN data.”

Anthony Watts, a meteorologist who has conducted extensive surveys of NOAA temperature recording posts, toldFoxNews.com in February 2010 that “…90 % of them [surface stations] don’t meet the [government's] old, simple rule called the ’100-foot rule for keeping thermometers 100 feet or more from biasing influence… and we’ve got documentation”.

Do you have any actual evidence for your assertions? It's been proven that most of the stations do not fall within their NASA and NOAA standards.

Perhaps you meant to say that warmists vain and obvious attempts to make the world seem warmer than it is, that catastrophic doom will result, and that the Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and all the warming in the 1930s didn't really exist are what skeptics are fighting. That would be much more accurate and true.

 

[brewmama]

Now, one more thing to add...
I am floored by your attempt to besmirch reigning in lunatic Hansen as oppression, threats, censorship, etc, while you seem to ignore things like:

Top French Weatherman Fired For Denying Global Warming
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/02/t...red-for-denying-global-warming/#ixzz47ue05Y2u

PROF FIRED FOR CALLING GLOBAL WARMING ‘UNPROVED SCIENCE’ STANDS FIRM – Progressive American U. statistician Dr. Caleb Rossiter Reversed Belief in AGW: Now says belief in climate catastrophe ‘simply not logical’
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/06...ief-in-agw-now-says-belief-in-climate-catast/

Debate no more! Jailed for scientific dissent?! Twenty climate scientists, including Top UN scientist, call for RICO investigation of climate skeptics in letter to Obama
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/09...lty-of-disinformation-like-tobacco-companies/

Senator: Use RICO Laws to Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics
http://www.weeklystandard.com/artic...sing-rico-laws-global-warming-skeptics/963007

Environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lamented that there were no current laws on the books to punish global warming skeptics. . “I wish there were a law you could punish them with.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09...treason-they-ought-to-be-serving-time-for-it/

In 2007, then EPA Chief Vowed to Probe E-mail Threatening to ‘Destroy’ Career of Climate Skeptic and dissenters of warming fears have been called ‘Climate Criminals’ who are committing ‘Terracide’ (killing of Planet Earth) (July 25, 2007) In addition, in May 2009, Climate Depot Was Banned in Louisiana! See: State official sought to ‘shut down’ climate skeptic’s testimony at hearing.


NASA’s James Hansen has called for trials of climate skeptics in 2008 for “high crimes against humanity.” In 2006, the eco-magazine Grist called for Nuremberg-Style trials for skeptics. In 2008, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be thrown “into jail.” In 2007, The Weather Channel’s climate expert called for withholding certification of skeptical meteorologists.

No Dissent Allowed! 79-Year old Skeptical Climate Scientist Victim of Witch-Hunt – Fears for his ‘safety’ after declaring himself a skeptic
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/05...his-safety-after-declaring-himself-a-skeptic/

Dem ‘Witch Hunt’ Forces Scientist Out Of Global Warming Research
http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/25/democrats-witch-hunt-global-warming/

This is just a small sample! Now what were you saying about Hansen being "muzzled"????

 

[brewmama]

FOIA requests showed that scientists' claims of political pressure to downplay warming were correct..

Oh wait, I missed this...
FOIA requests (that were routinely and illegally ignored), are evidence of "political pressure"??? Who sent the requests, by the way?

 

[Barbarian]

"Yet in January 15, 2009 testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works-Minority Committee, his former boss John S. Theon, retired chief of NASA’s Climate Processes Research Program, took issue with the interference charge, stating: “Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen has embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claim of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress.”

Dr. Theon appears to have retired from NASA in 1994, some 15 years ago. Until yesterday I had never heard of him (despite working with and for NASA for the last 13 years). His insights into both modelling and publicity appear to date from then, rather than any recent events. He was not Hansen’s ‘boss’ (the director of GISS reports to the director of GSFC, who reports to the NASA Administrator). His “some scientists” quote is simply a smear – which scientists? where? what did they do? what data? what manipulation? This kind of thing plays well with Inhofe et al because it appears to add something to the ‘debate’, but in actual fact there is nothing here. Just vague, unsubstantiated accusations.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/29/so-who-is-john-s-theon/

When confronted about his claim to have been Hansen's supervisor, Theon quickly revised his story:
Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. “I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results. I did not have the authority to give him his annual performance evaluation…
(same source)

So he lied about that, too. On the other hand,

George C. Deutsch, the young presidential appointee at NASA who told public affairs workers to limit reporters' access to a top climate scientist and told a Web designer to add the word "theory" at every mention of the Big Bang, resigned yesterday, agency officials said.


Mr. Deutsch's resignation came on the same day that officials at Texas A&M University confirmed that he did not graduate from there, as his résumé on file at the agency asserted.

Officials at NASA headquarters declined to discuss the reason for the resignation.

"Under NASA policy, it is inappropriate to discuss personnel matters," said Dean Acosta, the deputy assistant administrator for public affairs and Mr. Deutsch's boss.

The resignation came as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration was preparing to review its policies for communicating science to the public. The review was ordered Friday by Michael D. Griffin, the NASA administrator, after a week in which many agency scientists and midlevel public affairs officials described to The New York Times instances in which they said political pressure was applied to limit or flavor discussions of topics uncomfortable to the Bush administration, particularly global warming.

"As we have stated in the past, NASA is in the process of revising our public affairs policies across the agency to ensure our commitment to open and full communications," the statement from Mr. Acosta said.

The statement said the resignation of Mr. Deutsch was "a separate matter."

Mr. Deutsch, 24, was offered a job as a writer and editor in NASA's public affairs office in Washington last year after working on President Bush's re-election campaign and inaugural committee, according to his résumé. No one has disputed those parts of the document.

According to his résumé, Mr. Deutsch received a "Bachelor of Arts in journalism, Class of 2003."

Yesterday, officials at Texas A&M said that was not the case.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/politics/08nasa.html

On his first day in office in January, President Barack Obama went to work for science writers as he issued a directive on transparency and access to government information. The new president issued an Executive Memo on "Openness and Transparency," reversing a Bush-era rule that favored secrecy over disclosure for requests filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).


Obama turned the clock back to Clinton Attorney General Janet Reno, who said information should be released unless it could cause "forseeable harm." The Bush Administration, in contrast, had urged agencies to consider any "legal basis" for withholding information. The message released by Obama on his first day in office was that government ought to be "transparent," "participatory," and "collaborative."


Impeding journalists' ability to communicate with federal scientists was a matter of policy during the Bush administration, one of several ways in which that administration undermined science in government. I was involved in several Union of Concerned Scientists Scientific Integrity division reports documenting how government undermined science, and how federal scientists were frustrated, to say the least, with the situation.


For a report called "Freedom to Speak?," the Union of Concerned Scientists documented interference by federal agencies (including NASA, NOAA, FWS, OSHA, and CDC) with scientists' ability to communicate their research findings with journalists.


"A reporter specifically asked to speak to me and was told I was unavailable," reported a NASA scientist. "Requests for specific biologists are given to the field supervisor who generally handles them by himself or with the help of a public affairs person or supervisor, rarely the appropriate biologist," said a scientist at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.


Some scientists approached the policy creatively: "I ignore the policy and speak directly with the media when I feel it is important to do so (which is often!)" said a Center for Disease Control (CDC) scientist...
Communications between federal scientists and journalists started to improve after climate guru James Hansen went public with accusations that he was being "muzzled" by NASA. A few other prominent climate scientists also spoke out. Science writers including Andy Revkin of the New York Times helped bring attention to the problem by covering these incidents in major newspapers.

In 2006 NASA revised its media policy to emphasize its "commitment to open . . . dialogue with the public" and make clear that NASA scientists may speak freely with the media. The following year the U.S. Department of Commerce, which oversees the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), issued a new media policy modeled on NASA's, which the Union of Concerned Scientists called "a step in the right direction."

The Union of Concerned Scientists gave the Center for Disease Control a high grade on its media policy. In practice, though, the agency did not always meet the policy's high standards. A CDC scientist said that "with highly charged issues the agency has buckled to political pressure" in spite of good media policies.

By the time the Association of Health Care Journalists sent a letter in March urging the Obama Administration to end the practice of making reporters go through public affairs offices to arrange interviews, some of the worst policies had already been improved, at least on paper.
https://www.nasw.org/article/access-federal-scientists

So basically, when you say "what scientists say," it means

...the consensus of climatologists. As you learned, the story that "scientists in the 70s, thought it was going to get colder" was a scam perpetrated by a senator who took huge donations from companies wanting to overturn science. In fact:

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
September 2008>The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus
Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

And, as you yourself just said, "Dr. Hansen refused to be silenced."

They tried, but he persevered and in the end, the bad guys lost. Infuriating to deniers, but the right of the public to hear what scientists have found was confirmed, and NASA was required to put in safeguards against further political interference.

 

[brewmama]

If you want to spend so much time arguing such wishful thinking and revised history, (meanwhile ignoring true oppression and interference), feel free. Your credibility is diminished by defending Hansen so vigorously, when even warmist scientists have abandoned him (as they also have Michael Mann).
And how you can determine that Theon was not in a position to criticize Hansen, or lied from this: "When confronted about his claim to have been Hansen's supervisor, Theon quickly revised his story:
Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. “I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results. I did not have the authority to give him his annual performance evaluation…
(same source)
So he lied about that, too"

is baffling

Meanwhile, I will continue with the actual topic on hand...

A snapshot of one year that shows what a lie "settled science" is:

5) An August peer-reviewed study finds clouds may greatly reduce global warming
6) A new peer-reviewed study finds that the solar system regulates the earth’s climate –
7) Chinese scientists Lin Zhen-Shan, and Sun Xian's 2007 study, published in the peer-reviewed Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, noted that CO2's impact on warming may be "excessively exaggerated."
8) A Team of Scientists Question The Validity Of A 'Global Temperature'
9) An April 2007 study revealed the Earth's climate "seesawing" during the last 10,000 years, according to Swedish researchers at Lund University
10) A new peer-reviewed study on Surface Warming and the Solar Cycle published in Geophysical Research Letters by scientists from the University of Washington claims to be "the first to document a statistically significant globally coherent temperature response to the solar cycle,"
11) In 2007, even the alarmist UN IPCC reduced its sea level rise estimates significantly, thus reducing man's estimated impact on the climate by 25%. Meanwhile, a separate UN report in late 2006 found that cow emissions are more damaging to the planet than all of the CO2 emissions from cars and trucks. (LINK)
12) The UN Climate Panel has been accused of possible research fraud. Here is an excerpt: Douglas J. Keenan, a former Morgan Stanley employee and current independent mathematical researcher, accused the UN of "fabrications" and "discovered that the sources used by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) have disregarded the positions of weather stations."
13) A study in the summer 2007 American Association of Petroleum Geologists publication debunked global warming fears. The study by Geologist C. Robert Shoup, was entitled "Science Under Attack." It concluded: "The hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming does not yet meet the basic scientific standards of proof needed to be accepted as a viable hypothesis, much less as accepted fact."

The Washington Post's Eilperin wrote: "In late May, Michael Griffin, administrator of NASA, which conducts considerable amounts of climate research, told National Public Radio that he was not sure climate change was ‘a problem we must wrestle with" and that it was ‘rather arrogant' to suggest that the climate we have now represents the best possible set of conditions. Alexander Cockburn, a maverick journalist who leans left on most topics, lambasted the global-warming consensus last spring on the political Web site CounterPunch.org, arguing that there's no evidence yet that humans are causing the rise in global temperature."

Left-wing Professor David Noble of Canada's York University has joined the growing chorus of disenchanted liberal activists. Noble now believes that the movement has "hyped the global climate issue into an obsession." Noble wrote a May 8 essay entitled "The Corporate Climate Coup" which details how global warming has "hijacked" the environmental left and created a "corporate climate campaign" which has "diverted attention from the radical challenges of the global justice movement." (LINK)

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2007/10/post-dcf7413b-802a-23ad-4e94-b596f085a13b

And this is only Part 2

 

[brewmama]

...the consensus of climatologists. As you learned, the story that "scientists in the 70s, thought it was going to get colder" was a scam perpetrated by a senator who took huge donations from companies wanting to overturn science. In fact:

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
September 2008>The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus
Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

As for this, it's easily rebutted:

A series of blogs analizing Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and John Fleck’s (PCF) largely mistitled “The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus” (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society Volume 89, Issue 9, September 2008, pp 1325-1337). Previous considerations about a global cooling consensus in the 1960’s can be read here and here.

http://omnologos.com/definitive-evidence-for-global-cooling-consensus-in-the-1970s-3/

 

[turnorburn]

Fukushima changed all of their calculations..

Fukushima Forever – the Pacific Ocean is Dying

Posted on April 11, 2015 by gerold

Reading time: 12,485 words, 35 pages, 29 to 49 minutes.

Updated April 12, 2015 with charts from Zero Hedge (H/T Ken J.)

Updated June 27,2015: The NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) retracted its earlier announcement and admitted that the warming of the Pacific is NOT caused by El Nino but they kept it quiet. I suppose if they broadcast it, someone might ask the embarrassing question that if it’s not El Nino then what, in fact, is causing the warming of the Pacific?

The Pacific Ocean is dying. I’ve been warning about the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear disaster for four years and now its deadly consequences are more apparent every day.

Fukushima’s weapons-grade radioactive aerial fall-out and contaminated ocean currents are bioaccumulating in phytoplankton; the bottom (beginning) of the food chain. As well, it weakens the Pacific marine life’s immune systems making them more susceptible to bacterial, viral and parasitic infestation leading to death and ultimately species extinction by exacerbating existing conditions like climate change, ocean warming, pollution, over-development and over-harvesting. Life in and around the Pacific Ocean is dying.

https://geroldblog.com/2015/04/11/fukushima-forever-the-pacific-ocean-is-dying/
.

 

[turnorburn]

About these plagues that are coming on mankind bringing to a close life as we knew it.. the Lord gave me this from his word in 2007.. Best assurance anyone could ask for..

Psalm 91:1 He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.

2 I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust.

3 Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence.

4 He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.

5 Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day;

6 Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday.

7 A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee.

8 Only with thine eyes shalt thou behold and see the reward of the wicked.

9 Because thou hast made the LORD, which is my refuge, even the most High, thy habitation;

10 There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling.

11 For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.

12 They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.

13 Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet.

14 Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver him: I will set him on high, because he hath known my name.

15 He shall call upon me, and I will answer him: I will be with him in trouble; I will deliver him, and honour him.

16 With long life will I satisfy him, and shew him my salvation.

 

[Barbarian]

As for this, it's easily rebutted:

Your site shows that it's easily denied, but can't be rebutted. The study focused on what scientists actually published in the 1970s, not what newspapers, radio shows, or politicians said about it. Here's the data:

Contrary to what Crichton, Dobbs, and others might assert, climate scientists never agreed that the Earth was destined for long-term cooling back in the 1970s. Yes, the Earth cooled between 1940 and 1970, but it was exceedingly slight. Scientists now agree that the cooling resulted from excessive use of sulfur-based aerosols. Aerosols only remain in the atmosphere for a short period of time compared to other greenhouse gases, so the aerosol cooling effect faded away as atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations rose. Knowing this, the majority of climate scientists at the time still anticipated warming. A review of climate change literature between 1965 and 1979, undertaken in 2008, found that 44 papers "predicted, implied, or provided supporting evidence" for global warming, while only seven did so for global cooling.

"Global cooling was never more than a minor aspect of the scientific climate change literature of the era, let alone the scientific consensus..." the reviewers remarked.

Your blog never addressed the fact that the vast majority of climate papers, even then, predicted warming. And it's easy to see why; if they had, their argument would have evaporated.

 

[Barbarian]

"When confronted about his claim to have been Hansen's supervisor, Theon quickly revised his story:
Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. “I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results. I did not have the authority to give him his annual performance evaluation…
(same source)
So he lied about that, too"

In fact, Theon was never Hansen's supervisor, as he tried to delicately admit.

is baffling

It's not baffling. He made a claim, and he got caught. So he tried to rationalize it away as best he could.

Maybe if you tried to focus on the issue at hand, you'd do better.

5) An August peer-reviewed study finds clouds may greatly reduce global warming

They do. If there were no clouds, the warming would be even more pronounced.

6) A new peer-reviewed study finds that the solar system regulates the earth’s climate –

It does. For example, we are in a profound sunspot minimum. Last time this happened, was the "Little Ice Age" with snowstorms in summer in Europe. All it did this time, was slightly moderate the rise in temperatures. And the last two years were the hottest on record. The effect of decreased solar activity is still there; it's just overridden by a large increase in CO2.

7) Chinese scientists Lin Zhen-Shan, and Sun Xian's 2007 study, published in the peer-reviewed Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, noted that CO2's impact on warming may be "excessively exaggerated."

Comes down to evidence. And so far, CO2 is driving it.

(various other non-scientists, magazines, politicians, etc. denying the evidence)

Nice try. But the evidence still wins.

And this is only Part 2

Will we see some evidence in part 3? Prediction: more unsupported opinions, but still no evidence.[/QUOTE]

 

[brewmama]

Your site shows that it's easily denied, but can't be rebutted. The study focused on what scientists actually published in the 1970s, not what newspapers, radio shows, or politicians said about it. Here's the data:

Contrary to what Crichton, Dobbs, and others might assert, climate scientists never agreed that the Earth was destined for long-term cooling back in the 1970s. Yes, the Earth cooled between 1940 and 1970, but it was exceedingly slight. Scientists now agree that the cooling resulted from excessive use of sulfur-based aerosols. Aerosols only remain in the atmosphere for a short period of time compared to other greenhouse gases, so the aerosol cooling effect faded away as atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations rose. Knowing this, the majority of climate scientists at the time still anticipated warming. A review of climate change literature between 1965 and 1979, undertaken in 2008, found that 44 papers "predicted, implied, or provided supporting evidence" for global warming, while only seven did so for global cooling.

"Global cooling was never more than a minor aspect of the scientific climate change literature of the era, let alone the scientific consensus..." the reviewers remarked.

Your blog never addressed the fact that the vast majority of climate papers, even then, predicted warming. And it's easy to see why; if they had, their argument would have evaporated.

Of course they did. You must have not bothered to read it.

"In an act of supreme irony, incontrovertible evidence for a “global cooling scientific consensus in the 1970s” is spelled out loud and clear in Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and John Fleck’s (PCF) “The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus”.

How did they manage then to show “global cooling scientific consensus in the 1970s” to be a “myth”?

By carefully adopting their own particular definitions for common words; by using the very “selective misreading of the texts” they accuse others to be guilty of (page 1326); and by using quite uneven criteria, strict regarding “cooling” and “consensus”, and loose on the “warming” side.

In the process, they have ended up discarding or having to liberally interpret most of the available literature. Furthermore, for an article dealing with a particular time period, PCF’s comments do appear temporally jumbled up. And they have created their own myths: the isolation of different types of climate research before the 1970’s, and the sudden appearance of CO2 as a factor affecting climate.
So according to PCF, a lowering of global temperatures was indeed the mainstream view in 1972. And up to sometimes in the 1970s at least, the available scientific evidence pointed towards global cooling being a reality.

On the basis of what PCF have written, a “global cooling scientific consensus” did exist in the 1970s, if only for a few years."

 

[brewmama]

In fact, Theon was never Hansen's supervisor, as he tried to delicately admit.

Your continuous effort to make something out of nothing with semantics is noted. Anyone without a dog in the fight would grant that "I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results" gives someone validity in criticizing.

They do. If there were no clouds, the warming would be even more pronounced.

As usual, you didn't bother to read or respond to the point:

"...climate models fail to adequately take into account the effects of clouds. The study shows that tropical rainfall events are accompanied by a decrease in high ice clouds, thus allowing more infrared heat radiation to escape to space. Author Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama Huntsville said: "At least 80 percent of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapor and clouds, and those are largely under the control of precipitation systems. Until we understand how precipitation systems change with warming, I don't believe we can know how much of our current warming is manmade."

It does. For example, we are in a profound sunspot minimum. Last time this happened, was the "Little Ice Age" with snowstorms in summer in Europe. All it did this time, was slightly moderate the rise in temperatures. And the last two years were the hottest on record. The effect of decreased solar activity is still there; it's just overridden by a large increase in CO2.

Not responding to the main point:
“According to the findings reviewed in this paper, the variable output of the sun, the sun’s gravitational relationship between the earth (and the moon) and earth’s variable orbital relationship with the sun, regulate the earth’s climate.”
Not CO2.

Comes down to evidence. And so far, CO2 is driving it.

"The global climate warming is not solely affected by the CO2 greenhouse effect. The best example is temperature obviously cooling however atmospheric CO2 concentration is ascending from 1940s to 1970s. Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated. It is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change," the two scientists concluded.

That's the whole point. It's not.

(various other non-scientists, magazines, politicians, etc. denying the evidence)
Nice try. But the evidence still wins.Will we see some evidence in part 3? Prediction: more unsupported opinions, but still no evidence.

Why do you say "non-scientists"? That's blatantly false. Sadly for you, the evidence is on our side.

"Discussions on global warming often refer to 'global temperature.' Yet the concept is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility, says Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen. (LINK)
"It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth", Bjarne Andresen says, an expert of thermodynamics. According to Andresen: "The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless."

"The driving mechanism is exactly the opposite of what Al Gore claims, both in his film and in that book. It's the temperature that, through those 650,000 years, controlled the CO2; not the CO2 that controlled the temperature," he added.

Now this might be a bit technical, but what Giegengack is saying here is that it is temperatures that control CO2. This is crucial to understanding the reason why the scientific underpinnings of man-made global warming fears are utterly collapsing and the climate models are continuing to fail.

Giegengack continued: "Certain ‘feedback loops' naturally control the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. A warmer temperature drives gases out of solution in the ocean and releases them." "[Today, humans] are putting 6.5 billion tons of fossil-fuel carbon into the atmosphere, and only 3.5 billion is staying there, so 3 billion tons is going somewhere else. In the past, when the Earth's climate rose, CO2 came out of the ocean, the soils, and the permafrost. Today as temperatures rise, excess CO2 is instead going into those and other reservoirs. This reversed flux is very important. Because of this, if we reduced the rate at which we put carbon into the atmosphere, it won't reduce the concentration in the atmosphere; CO2 is just going to come back out of these reservoirs ... If we were to stop manufacturing CO2 tomorrow, we wouldn't see the effects of that for generations."

 

[brewmama]

The point is, which you haven't denied, is that there is neither settled science nor consensus.

 

[brewmama]

Open letter signed by various scientists to Canadian PM:

"...Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based... "Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise."...When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy... If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary."

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...s-all?ID=1E639422-7094-4972-83AF-EE40EE302D41

 

[brewmama]

"Denialism is defined as “the practice of creating the illusion of debate when there is none.” In climate the problem is those who label others deniers are the real deniers. They don’t even acknowledge there is a debate to deny...
Recently Lord Monckton provided details of the continuing period of 18 years and 8 months with no global warming (Figure 1). Ross McKitrick puts the hiatus at 19 years at the surface and 16-26 years in the lower troposphere. Regardless, it contradicts the basic assumption of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis because CO2 levels continued to rise. Proponents only acknowledged these events by calling it climate change instead of global warming.



Figure 1

They then came up with 52 and counting excuses for the facts not fitting the hypothesis.

· As Monckton demonstrates, the global average temperature has not risen for 19 years.

· Over the same period CO2 levels continued to rise.

· Every IPCC temperature projection was wrong.

· Temperature increases before CO2 in every single record for any period. The only place in the world where CO2 increase precedes a temperature increase is in the IPCC computer models.

· CO2 is only 4 percent of the total greenhouse gasses and the human portion is only 3.4 percent of that total.

· Predictions of more severe weather are proving incorrect.

· The continued failure of medium forecasts, such as the most recent debacle in the UK, further the already high public skepticism about weather forecasts.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/06/an-update-on-the-real-deniers/

And yet these people somehow think they have the evidence, while we do not!