Print
Feb
21

Michael Mann Faces Bankruptcy as his Courtroom Climate Capers Collapse

Written by John O'Sullivan

Massive counterclaims, in excess of $10 million, have just been filed against climate scientist Michael Mann after lawyers affirmed that the former golden boy of global warming alarmism had sensationally failed in his exasperating three-year bid to sue skeptic Canadian climatologist, Tim Ball. Door now wide open for criminal investigation into Climategate conspiracy.Mann arrest photo

Buoyed by Dr Ball's successes, journalist and free-speech defender, Mark Steyn has promptly decided to likewise countersue Michael Mann for $10 million in response to a similar SLAPP suit filed by the litigious professor from Penn. State University against not just Steyn, but also the National Review, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Rand Simberg. Ball's countersuit against Mann seeks "exemplary and punitive damages. " Bishop Hill blog is running extracts of Steyn's counterclaim, plus link.

Mann’s chief undoing in all such lawsuits is highlighted in a quote in Steyn’s latest counterclaim:

“Plaintiff continues to evade the one action that might definitively establish its [his science’s] respectability - by objecting, in the courts of Virginia, British Columbia and elsewhere, to the release of his research in this field. See Cuccinelli vs Rectors and Visitors of the University of Virginia...”

At last, after 3 years of legal wrangling, it is made clear why I was so bold as to formally undertake an indemnity to fully compensate Dr Ball for my own actions in the event Mann won the case.  Respected Aussie climate commentator, Jo Nova was one of the few to commend my unparalled commitment to Ball's cause.

Steyn’s legal team, aware of the latest developments from Vancouver, have correctly adduced that Ball has effectively defeated Mann after the Penn. State pretender’s preposterous and inactive lawsuit against Ball was rendered dormant for failure to prosecute. Under law, Mann’s prevarications, all his countless fudging and evasiveness in the matter, establishes compelling evidence that his motive was not to prove Ball had defamed him, but more likely a cynical attempt to silence fair and honest public criticism on a pressing and contentious government policy issue.

The fact Mann refused to disclose his ‘hockey stick’ graph metadata in the British Columbia Supreme Court, as he is required to do under Canadian civil rules of procedure, constituted a fatal omission to comply, rendering his lawsuit unwinnable. As such, Dr Ball, by default, has substantiated his now famous assertion that Mann belongs "in the state pen, not Penn. State."  In short, Mann failed to show he did not fake his tree ring proxy data for the past 1,000 years, so Ball’s assessment stands as fair comment. Moreover, many hundreds of papers in the field of paleoclimate temperature reconstructions that cite Mann’s work are likewise tainted, heaping more misery on the discredited UN’s Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) which has a knack of relying on such sub prime science.

Where Do We Go From Here?

It will likely be open season on Mann. Anyone may now freely dismiss him in the harshest terms as a junk scientist who shilled for a failed global warming cabal. Without fear of his civil legal redress, we may now refer to Mann for what he is: a climate criminal, a fraudster.

Being that Mann's suit in the BC court was filed 3 years ago before he filed against Steyn, it appears Dr Ball will be first in line with his counterclaims and pipping Steyn for the well-deserved $10 million compensation prize. That’s if Mann's financial backers (most notably, the David Suzuki Foundation) aren't bankrupted first.

Woe for Weaver, too

But the more savvy climate analysts will note something here that is far more important scientifically than just Ball’s sensational legal victory over Mann. That is Ball’s more telling concurrent court triumph over Professor Andrew Weaver, “climate scientist” at the University of Victoria, BC, Deputy Leader of the Green Party of British Columbia, and a member of the British Columbia Legislative Assembly. Weaver has also established himself as the IPCC’s lead climate modeler.

Long-time readers may recall that Weaver also sued Ball for libel in February 2011, some months before Mann took a punt at it.  David Suzuki's mouthpiece, desmogblog.com made huge fanfare of it at the time. Both Ball and I suffered the ignominy of having all our online articles removed from the Canada Free Press website after CFP caved into the bully boy tactics masterminded behind the scenes by the deep-pocketed David Suzuki and his Desmogblog cronies, who thereafter smeared my name, too).Suzuki

Weaver’s libel suit against Ball has also now been rendered dormant due to failure to prosecute because Weaver, like Mann, won’t disclose his (similarly dubious) metadata. Both these prominent men have been expensively represented by one of Canada’s top libel experts, Roger McConchie, who claims he “literally wrote the book on “Canadian Libel and Slander Actions.””

This is an epic double whammy for Ball. As an inadvertent courtroom martyr for climate skeptics Dr Ball has destroyed the credibility of both the IPPC paleoclimate record (Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ graph ‘science’)  and all those IPCC  computer model ‘projections’ of a dangerously warming climate (Weaver’s ‘science’). And all achieved in the most important ‘peer reviewed’ venue possible – a government court of law. The threat of the cold light of truth being shone on their "secret science" was a step too far for Mann and Weaver. As such,  the alarmist (false) claims of a cooler past climate presented by Mann, and doomsaying computer model projections of a dangerously warming future climate, presented by the still hugely influential Weaver, would not stand up in court.

So, forget Steyn’s case – the court victories that count, in terms of the scientific (and political) consequences, are entirely due to Tim Ball. By tenaciously and bravely defending his actions for three long years the mild-mannered septaugenarian has single-handedly proved that the very core of government climate science is junk. Thereby, this instance of 'science on trial' is no less significant, in the broadest sociatal context, as the infamous Scope's Monkey Trial of 1925. 

But was the "evidence" for global warming intentionally and illegally concocted? By their persistence in hiding their data we may think so, as far as Mann and Weaver are concerned; while Dr Ball's latest sensational book,''The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science;' detailing the Climategate shenanigans, is a 'must read' as to culpability. But only a full criminal investigation will be determinative of all that. The question now is, will the U.S. and Canadian governmental authorities have the stomach to delve deeper?

 

Pin it

Comments  

Mervyn
#1 Mervyn 2014-02-21 08:44
This is absolutely brilliant news, and congratulations John in relation to your support for Tim Ball. This has just made my day!
Quote | Report to administrator
jsullivan
#2 jsullivan 2014-02-21 09:17
Thanks Mervyn. Yes, it's fantastic news. Mann has lost spectacularly and Ball richly deserves all the plaudits for his courageous stance. It was a great honor for me to play my bit part.
Quote | Report to administrator
Eddy Aruda
#3 Eddy Aruda 2014-02-21 09:49
Mr. Sullivan, I have often read your posts at Jo's site. Thank you for what you have done. I hope history, which is written by the victors, will remember what you have accomplished.

Huevos Grande, counselor! :-)
Quote | Report to administrator
jsullivan
#4 jsullivan 2014-02-21 10:06
Eddy, many thanks. We shall now see if the MSM will come to their senses and let the truth win out.
Quote | Report to administrator
Sam Pyeatte
#5 Sam Pyeatte 2014-02-21 11:29
This is great news. Make sure it is spread far and wide. It will be a major blow to the socialist drive for global control. Freedom, truth and real science wins.
Quote | Report to administrator
Mike Harris
#6 Mike Harris 2014-02-21 11:38
Great, wonderful news. Congratulations on your support of Ball, this really has made my weekend. The final question as to having the stomach to investigate, sadly I feel not.
Quote | Report to administrator
Fred the Lad
#7 Fred the Lad 2014-02-21 11:41
Such excellent news. Taking down Mikey Mann, Andrew "Black Helicopters" Weaver, Dr, Fruit Fly and the desmogblog in one fell swoop . . . priceless.

A bucket full of greenie gaia loving nutbars gets their just rewards.
Quote | Report to administrator
Kent Clizbe
#8 Kent Clizbe 2014-02-21 11:44
John,

This is really great news. Congratulations!

We still need a whistle-blower.

I'm working on encouraging insiders (grad students, IT guys, colleagues) close to Mann to do the right thing.

Like all criminal conspiracies, the surest and clearest way to reveal the conspiracy is an insider who sees the light.

Keep up the good work.

Think positive!

Kent
Quote | Report to administrator
norpag
#9 norpag 2014-02-21 11:55
The refusal of Mann and Weaver to make their metadata available shows once again the fragile basis of the IPCC modeling forecasts on which the whole now crumbling edifice of the CAGW scare relies.
There has been no net warming for 16 years and the earth entered a cooling trend in about 2003 which will last for another 20 years and perhaps for hundreds of years beyond that.
The current weather patterns in the UK and USA are typical of those developed by the more meridional path of the jet stream on a cooling earth. The Fagan book “The Little Ice Age ” is a useful guide from the past to the future. The frequency of these weather patterns, e.g. for the USA the PDO related drought in California and the Polar Vortex excursions to the South will increase as cooling continues
The views of the establishment scientists in the USA and the UK Met office’s publicity in this matter reveals their continued refusal to recognize and admit the total failure of the climate models in the face of the empirical data of the last 15 years. It is time for the climate community to move to another approach based on pattern recognition in the temperature and driver data and also on the recognition of the different frequencies of different regional weather patterns on a cooling ( more meridional jet stream ) and warming (more latitudinal jet stream ) world.
For forecasts of the coming cooling based on the 60 year (PDO) and the 1000 year quasi-periodicities seen in the temperature data and the neutron count as a proxy for solar activity in general see several posts at
climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
For a review of a 3 year update of a 30 year forecast see
climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/07/skillful-so-far-thirty-year-climate.html
For an estimate of future NH temperature trends see the latest post at
climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
Quote | Report to administrator
FauxScienceSlayer
#10 FauxScienceSlayer 2014-02-21 13:24
Introduce as evidence the excellent "Hockey Stick Illusion" by A W Montford. Also introduce as evidence the ACTUAL Physics of the atmosphere. All objects in the Universe 'emit' energy based on their temperature. The ~ 6,000K Sun emits a broad, bell shaped curve spectrum with three 'absorption' band for CO2. The 2.7 micron band [800C], the 4.3 micron band [400C] and the 15 micron band [-80C]. Earth never gets hot enough to emit CO2 absorption, except in the 15 micron band witch is shared with water vapor.

Over 30% of the Sun's radiant energy is absorbed or reflected in the atmosphere before it can warm the Earth, meaning the air and CO2 both COOL the Earth. See

http:///sites/default/files/the%20Sun's%20energy.pdf

EVERYTHING about Climate Alchemy is a FRAUD.
Quote | Report to administrator
Louis Hooffstetter
#11 Louis Hooffstetter 2014-02-21 13:45
Ding dong, the witch is dead,
the witch is dead,
the witch is dead.
Ding dong, the wicked witch is dead!
Quote | Report to administrator
Walter S Allensworth
#12 Walter S Allensworth 2014-02-21 14:38
Whoo-hoo! Who can I send money?
This is fantastic news.

The time has come for those that dare to censor us and shut us down with smear to get their comeuppance.

The clock it ticking for the Global Warming Nazi's who dare to attach a denier label to REAL scientist.
Quote | Report to administrator
Squid2112
#13 Squid2112 2014-02-21 15:54
I'm just curious. Once all of this gets swinging away, which I sincerely hope it does, successfully, could (and we should) begin hitting other outlets with law suits? Specifically NOAA, NASA and GISS for their fraudulent data and other things, like fraudulent climate models, etc..

Steven Goddard has been doing a bang up job lately of exposing just how corrupt and fraudulent the temperature data is, and how badly they have been manipulating the data in each of the sets. I would like to see HUGE class action law suits regarding these things. This is SUPPOSED to be public data! They have been manipulating OUR data and using it against us to illegally impose taxation upon us. This is corruption of the highest order and should be met with the severest of punishments available.

Just saying...
Quote | Report to administrator
Rob Honeycutt
#14 Rob Honeycutt 2014-02-21 16:07
Strangely, there is an amazing lack of references in this article. Were are the links to the court docs that support what's being stated here?
Quote | Report to administrator
MarineCorpsVet
#15 MarineCorpsVet 2014-02-21 16:17
Somebody should also go after the Weather Channel. They have abated recently but several years ago their weatherbabe Heidi Cullen, who is not to be seen anymore, was front and center cheerleading for GW.
Quote | Report to administrator
Kent Clizbe
#16 Kent Clizbe 2014-02-21 16:21
Squid,

The Federal "False Claims Act" is specifically designed to root out fraud in Federal contracting.

If these "scientists" are receiving Federal funding, and are falsifying, faking, or otherwise committing fraud in order to receive, or continue to receive the funding, they are subject to the False Claims Act.

The Act has a provision to motivate insiders to share their knowledge of the fraud--whistleblowers.

Anyone can bring an action under the False Claims Act. Once fraud is proven, the grant recipient institutions are forced to pay back the fraudulently obtained funds. The whistleblower who provides the information to prove the fraud is then entitled to a large chunk of the recovered funds (10-25%).

If all of Mann's federal grants were found to have been fraudulently obtained, a whistleblower would be entitled to a couple of million dollars under the False Claims Act.

I've been working to identify whistleblowers willing to come forward for several years. The tipe may well be ripe now.

Kent Clizbe
Quote | Report to administrator
Paul Burtwistle
#17 Paul Burtwistle 2014-02-21 16:30
This will be remembered as a historic victory and congratulations to Tim Ball and his supporters.
Slowly but surely, the whole AGW scam is unravelling and the scientists who have distorted the data, misled both politicians and the public are being found out.
I just hope that this is the first in a series of legal actions against the real climate criminals.
Quote | Report to administrator
Greg House
#18 Greg House 2014-02-21 16:44
Quoting Kent Clizbe:
If these "scientists" are receiving Federal funding, and are falsifying, faking, or otherwise committing fraud in order to receive, or continue to receive the funding, they are subject to the False Claims Act.


Then I am afraid the most of "climate science" is subject to the False Claims Act. In the first place everything that is based on "global temperature" or "greenhouse effect" by back radiation. Might backfire on some skeptical climatologies though.
Quote | Report to administrator
Jimmbbo
#19 Jimmbbo 2014-02-21 16:54
That's one small step for mankind!

Mann made global warming is a FRAUD
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc

A toast to Tim Ball and Mark Steyn for putting a nail in coffin of the global warming hoax...

BRAVO!!
Quote | Report to administrator
jsullivan
#20 jsullivan 2014-02-21 16:59
Walter, donations can be made at the top right hand side of the page using the yellow 'donate' button. All monies received invested into our mission to debunk junk science. Thanks,
John PSI CEO
Quote | Report to administrator
bernie1815
#21 bernie1815 2014-02-21 17:04
Citation of court documents please.
Quote | Report to administrator
Miner49er
#22 Miner49er 2014-02-21 17:24
Carbon dioxide IS NOT a 'greenhouse gas". CO2 is in perfect equilibrium in the environment. A high-school sophomore can compute a mass balance for carbon dioxide using credible public information sources. Do your homework!

We can use as much fossil fuels as we please without having any effect on climate. Anthropogenic global warming is a textbook mania, based on falsehoods. The media continues to feed the mania by promoting false assumptions. We can use as much fossil fuels as we please without having any effect on climate. Regulating or limiting human CO2 emissions is a colossal waste of money and effort.

While carbon dioxide may show nominal greenhouse properties in the lab, it has no adverse effect on climate. Changes in atmospheric ambient CO2 are the result of natural temperature changes caused by other forces, likely the solar Maunder cycle. A warmer temperature results in a higher equilibrium CO2 content. Cooler weather means less ambient CO2.

96.8% of CO2 emissions are from natural sources. The earth reabsorbs 99.9985% of CO2 emitted from all natural and human sources. The average residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is less than 11 minutes. It goes into seawater, where it is quickly converted to carbonate rock, where it will remain for tens of millions of years.

Limestone, for example = CaCO3. An acre of oysters or coral can form more than ten tons of carbonate rock in a single growing season. The carbonate formation process is voracious and robust, and will consume all the carbon dioxide that humans can generate.

See: www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Carbon_cycle_update_Segalstad.pdf
and
www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/1345952.html
Quote | Report to administrator
jsullivan
#23 jsullivan 2014-02-21 17:53
Bernie, fair point. We've added a link above. Check out the extracts from the court docs now posted on Bishop Hill blog
bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/2/21/steyns-counterblast.html
Quote | Report to administrator
Alex Hamilton
#24 Alex Hamilton 2014-02-21 18:01
Michael Mann

I understand you think greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor) cause the "33 degrees of warming" rather than it being already there because gravity forms an autonomous lapse rate.

So I'm asking "What is the sensitivity to a 1% change in the percentage of water vapor above any particular region?"

You see, I just want to work out if, say a wet rain forest with 4% water vapor is supposed to be about 20 degrees hotter than a dry desert with only 1% water vapor.

My problem is that a comprehensive study based on 30 years of temperature data on three continents showed that wetter regions had lower mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures than dry regions.
Quote | Report to administrator
Greg House
#25 Greg House 2014-02-21 18:05
Quoting Alex Hamilton:
Michael Mann

I understand you think greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor) cause the "33 degrees of warming" rather than it being already there because ...


Doug, there is no "33 degrees of warming" and you know that.
Quote | Report to administrator
Nightrider
#27 Nightrider 2014-02-21 20:05
Quoting Fred the Lad:
Such excellent news. Taking down Mikey Mann, Andrew "Black Helicopters" Weaver, Dr, Fruit Fly and the desmogblog in one fell swoop . . . priceless.

A bucket full of greenie gaia loving nutbars gets their just rewards.

Quoting Fred the Lad:
Such excellent news. Taking down Mikey Mann, Andrew "Black Helicopters" Weaver, Dr, Fruit Fly and the desmogblog in one fell swoop . . . priceless.

A bucket full of greenie gaia loving nutbars gets their just rewards.

Especially if the following law suites sends the above all bankrupt. Than that would be the icing on the cake. Three cheers from commonsense, hip hip hooray, hip hip hooray, hip hip hooray!!!!
Quote | Report to administrator
Nightrider
#28 Nightrider 2014-02-21 20:15
Quoting Squid2112:
I'm just curious. Once all of this gets swinging away, which I sincerely hope it does, successfully, could (and we should) begin hitting other outlets with law suits? Specifically NOAA, NASA and GISS for their fraudulent data and other things, like fraudulent climate models, etc..

Steven Goddard has been doing a bang up job lately of exposing just how corrupt and fraudulent the temperature data is, and how badly they have been manipulating the data in each of the sets. I would like to see HUGE class action law suits regarding these things. This is SUPPOSED to be public data! They have been manipulating OUR data and using it against us to illegally impose taxation upon us. This is corruption of the highest order and should be met with the severest of punishments available.

Just saying...

Totally agree with you, hit them hard, and don't let up on them. Al gore is another one who should be sued.
Quote | Report to administrator
High Treason
#29 High Treason 2014-02-21 20:21
Now we can enjoy those CO2 bubbles in our icy cold champagne without being made to feel like criminals. Hopefully the whole house of cards starts falling over with some of Mann's work being discredited. If it can be demonstrated there is deliberate fraud involved and the IPCC knew about it, then it is time to attack the IPCC chief, Christiana Figueres over her comments that Democracy was not suited to deal with climate change-Chinese Communism is the best system to deal with climate change. Looks like the UN itself was created to promote world Communism. Very nice of them to withhold this-was it for our own good ? Are the 99% of us who will become slaves to the self-appointed "elites" going to benefit from this? Us 99%ers should be very angry.
Quote | Report to administrator
bernie1815
#30 bernie1815 2014-02-21 21:03
I think wishful thinking is confusing and distracting. Steve McIntyre with his typical precision and directness indicates at Lucia's that the Ball - Mann lawsuit is still very much alive. rankexploits.com/musings/2014/comments-on-mann-continued/#comment-124923
Quote | Report to administrator
lance
#31 lance 2014-02-21 22:30
I hope this is true, I contributed to Tim's defense when this all came to light....
Quote | Report to administrator
Frank Brus
#32 Frank Brus 2014-02-21 23:57
Quoting Kent Clizbe:
John,

This is really great news. Congratulations!

We still need a whistle-blower.

I'm working on encouraging insiders (grad students, IT guys, colleagues) close to Mann to do the right thing.

Like all criminal conspiracies, the surest and clearest way to reveal the conspiracy is an insider who sees the light.

Keep up the good work.

Think positive!

Kent


Surely, the emails Edward Snowden has would also contain some juicy info on the conspiracy as far as the US and other Governments are involved.
Quote | Report to administrator
Ian H
#33 Ian H 2014-02-22 00:59
I hate made up stories like this. It makes skeptics look like idiots.
Quote | Report to administrator
Stefan Metzeler
#34 Stefan Metzeler 2014-02-22 03:27
I just found your great news on this morning of my birthday and I consider it one of the best gifts, ever!

Finally, the fraudulent nature of this climate hoax is being exposed for what it is!

Thanks to all involved for your efforts and risk taking.
Quote | Report to administrator
Truthseeker
#35 Truthseeker 2014-02-22 03:29
Quoting Sam Pyeatte:
This is great news. Make sure it is spread far and wide. It will be a major blow to the socialist drive for global control. Freedom, truth and real science wins.


Do not bother trying to post anything on WUWT as Anthony is snipping any comment with a link to this site.
Quote | Report to administrator
john
#36 john 2014-02-22 04:40
Al Gore has made billions from the scam maybe he'll help Mann out....or maybe not, to many planes to pay for!!!!
Quote | Report to administrator
Lawrie
#37 Lawrie 2014-02-22 05:42
Bernie 1815 is correct so far as the case being alive. It has not been dismissed and could just linger for years. I'm sure Suzuki et al know that a dismissal will open a can of worms so they will just stall. Steyn will have the same problems with disclosure unfortunately. The AGW crowd understand the consequences of failure here.
Quote | Report to administrator
jsullivan
#38 jsullivan 2014-02-22 07:22
Bernie, Steve McIntyre's unqualified editorializing on the merits adds nothing of value. Mann’s lawsuit v. Ball has gone nowhere and is ripe for dismissal for being nothing more than a cynical SLAPP suit, as is Weaver-v-Ball; both actionable as malicious prosecutions.
Ball’s lawyers are well placed due to Mann’s (and Weaver’s) lack of prosecution being that Mann (and Weaver) stalled for 3 years, not complying with disclosure. On that technicality both Mann’s and Weaver’s cases are thus rendered unwinnable.
As a (substantial) financially interested party in the Mann case, due to my personal indemnity to Ball to compensate him fully if he loses, I’m now utterly confident Ball will succeed. Indeed, if Mann wishes to take issue with any of my published articles on the matter this is now a perfect opportunity for him to (a) post his rebuttal (b) sue me for repeatedly describing him as a fraudster and climate criminal and other ‘misrepresentations.’ As usual, I won’t be holding my breath.
Quote | Report to administrator
Chris Wood
#39 Chris Wood 2014-02-22 07:50
Great news but you are unlikely to hear about it from the BBC! Why is the MSM so reluctant to report what is becoming more and more obvious weekly. Even the UK Daily Telegraph continues to publish nonsense about Climate Change.
The problem, I think, is that, investigative journalism is almost dead, and many of these reports are of the copy and paste variety the more sensational a claim, the more likely it is to be published.
After all, the MSM exists to make money, unless it is the BBC, in which case it is to promote a left wing agenda.
Quote | Report to administrator
carson lauffer
#40 carson lauffer 2014-02-22 08:15
I wonder when the blowhards in the media will stop claiming that man made global warming is upon us?
Quote | Report to administrator
bernie1815
#41 bernie1815 2014-02-22 08:33
jsullivan - @38
You need to show me the evidence. I too would like to see Mann go down hard, but wishing and doing are two entirely different things. Can you link to court documents showing that the judge is getting testy with Mann or a ruling demanding disclosure by a certain date?
Quote | Report to administrator
matty
#42 matty 2014-02-22 08:43
Hi John and Tim,
Just read those great news.
My congratulations to both of you for your victory which, most importantly, is another victory of truth.
Keep up your good and most important work and good luck for both of you.
Matthias
Quote | Report to administrator
#43 Guest 2014-02-22 09:03
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
Yelder Retep
#44 Yelder Retep 2014-02-22 09:04
(SNIPPED)

I expect that the PSI blog admijnistrator Thomas (sunsettommy) Richard (see sub-section 3.9 of “SpotlightON – PSI and PSI Acumen Ltd) will delete this comment but it will be re-posted on “SpotlightON –PSI and PSI Acumen Ltd.” in an additional section "The PSI blog and Censorship" along with others that he has deleted.

(You have been BANNED numerous times here because of your off topic personal attacks and trolling.You have the gall to complain about censorship when you are not interested in the debate itself here)
Quote | Report to administrator
bernie1815
#45 bernie1815 2014-02-22 09:14
How can I unsubscribe to this site? The link provided on emails does not work.
Quote | Report to administrator
#46 Guest 2014-02-22 09:51
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
haarp
#47 haarp 2014-02-22 11:23
Turns out Tim Ball has NOT defeated Mann, this site loses credibility by the day. FFS you could have at least checked with Tim Ball.

wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/22/michael-manns-legal-case-caught-in-a-quote-fabrication-fib/
Quote | Report to administrator
Fox2!
#48 Fox2! 2014-02-22 11:28
Like all criminal conspiracies, the surest and clearest way to reveal the conspiracy is an insider who sees the light faces three to five years as a guest of Her Canadian Majesty.
Quote | Report to administrator
richard 2014
#49 richard 2014 2014-02-22 11:28
Steve McIntyre (Comment #124923)
February 21st, 2014 at 3:46 pm
I checked with Tim Ball and the Ball lawsuit has not been dismissed. They have outstanding discovery requests, but to go from mere delay to succeed in a motion for dismissal is a large step and one that has not been taken.
Quote | Report to administrator
Little Johnny
#50 Little Johnny 2014-02-22 11:46
Using Mann's tree ring data from 1,000 years ago (from which there are no records on weather)is perfectly acceptable.

His tree ring data from the 1930s onward (where weather records are available) is not reliable enough to use.

No problem! Draw your own conclusion and cherry pick data to fit it.
Quote | Report to administrator
Jeremy Poynton
#51 Jeremy Poynton 2014-02-22 12:08
Um. Sadly, the story it seems, is incorrect.

wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/22/michael-manns-legal-case-caught-in-a-quote-fabrication-fib/

"While yesterday there was an incorrect story called “Michael Mann Faces Bankruptcy as his Courtroom Climate Capers Collapse“ being pushed by John O’Sullivan at Principia Scientific International (aka PSI and The Slayers) claiming Dr. Tim Ball had defeated Mann’s lawsuit, Ball confirms through communications with McIntyre yesterday that while stalled, Mann’s lawsuit is still very much on. Also, for those who don’t know, we’ve heard that Dr. Mann’s legal bills are being paid by the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, where we’ve been told there are some deep green pockets contributing, so he isn’t facing bankruptcy, at least not yet."
Quote | Report to administrator
Michael D Smith
#52 Michael D Smith 2014-02-22 12:10
I haven't seen anything about dismissal anywhere else. What is your source and is the document available?
Quote | Report to administrator
Sunsettommy
#53 Sunsettommy 2014-02-22 14:38
It is clear that Peter Ridley is a determined troll who was BANNED LAST year and refuses to stay away.

I will inform John about this persistent man who keeps crashing the blog with his numerous attacks as he has done elsewhere where he has also been banned.He is a pest in many places and has been told to go away with his numerous off topic attacks on people and organizations.

I advise you to stay away.
Quote | Report to administrator
KingofthePaupers
#54 KingofthePaupers 2014-02-22 16:34
Jct: Great news to think that the hoaxer who came up with the trick to hide the decline in temperature we all now see is going to get what he deserves.
Quote | Report to administrator
Mervyn
#55 Mervyn 2014-02-22 22:35
John, it might be a good idea to provide a response in relation to Anthony Watt's article:

wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/22/michael-manns-legal-case-caught-in-a-quote-fabrication-fib/
Quote | Report to administrator
Jonny Perth
#56 Jonny Perth 2014-02-22 23:44
This has been a fascinating read.
Here in Perth, Australia, I have been quietly touching base with the engineers in this city on theri stance regarding the global warming debate. Apart from one person, all of the engineers that I polled, agreed that the "science" behind global warming is not true science. This vindication of our knowledge and application of scientific principals simply confirms for me that true scientists simply need to keep doing what we do, which is to use the scientific principals.

Thank you Principia Scientific for posting the article and to all the contributors for you input.
Quote | Report to administrator
Matthew Tremain
#57 Matthew Tremain 2014-02-23 00:48
If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear. If you do what is right in the first place, then you can stand without fear.
Lies will be demolished, and the truth will last forever, no matter how well one hides/dresses the lie.
Quote | Report to administrator
C Sharp
#58 C Sharp 2014-02-23 10:03
It's great to see these Eco charlatans exposed, which is something to be promoted widely. However science and progress should not be defined as : To interrogate the established wisdom [ in court ! ] in order to increase human knowledge.
The last thing we need is to validate the courts and legal system as the supreme 'peer review'.
Quote | Report to administrator
gweick
#59 gweick 2014-02-23 12:11
This is good news indeed, especially now that the Obama administration wants to put coal out of business and control wood burining stoves, etc. Anyone capable of unprejudiced thinking would realize that government's involvement has to do government control, not with so-called "global warming-->climate change". As parties to the Club of Rome stated 40 years ago: “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” — Alexander King Co-Founder of the Club of Rome, (premier environmental think-tank and consultants to the United Nations) from his 1991 book The First Global Revolution
Quote | Report to administrator
Carmine Corrente
#60 Carmine Corrente 2014-02-23 14:17
Has there EVER been an era or epoch in Earth's history when the climate was NOT changing? (...I hear the sound of crickets in the Church of Climate Change pews.)

The sun's energy output is NOT constant.
When it burns hotter, what can ANYBODY or ANYTHING on Earth possibly DO about it?
I perceive that most climate change priests know next to NOTHING about basic astronomy:

cosmos.phy.tufts.edu/~zirbel/ast21/handouts/StellarEvolution.PDF

However, this does not in any way diminish the importance of ecological and environmental stewardship. Global toxification IS a very real concern, regardless of warming or cooling trends.

Does it matter whether your cup of poison is hot or cold?

Alas, the near elimination of the seven liberal arts from the public education system has seriously handicapped the minds of those who most influence national and international policies.

The blame falls squarely on the "synagogue of Satan", and THEY know who they are. What is YOUR excuse?
Quote | Report to administrator
BB
#61 BB 2014-02-23 15:36
It is inconceivable that a pro-FESSOR such as Michael Mann could have achieved all this prominence and mainstream media presence without a WILLFUL and Compliant and Motivating Infrastructure behind it.

Michael Mann the diseased liar and sycophantic lapdog is simply a symptom of a far greater malaise and disease that is affecting our entire society:
Control from an elite and not control from the public.

This is the real cause for such vermin as Michael Mann.
The root cause must be exorcised least we will fall to another idiotic lapdog such as Michael Mann.
Quote | Report to administrator
carson lauffer
#62 carson lauffer 2014-02-23 16:02
:-) I quite agree.
Quote | Report to administrator
Gault Falcon
#63 Gault Falcon 2014-02-23 16:52
Quoting jsullivan:
Eddy, many thanks. We shall now see if the MSM will come to their senses and let the truth win out.


The MSM never bothered to report that the USSR was collapsing. My bet is that they will do their best to ignore this excellent news.
Quote | Report to administrator
abinico warez
#64 abinico warez 2014-02-23 17:09
If you think some 7+billion belching, farting, car driving humans have no effect on the planet, well you probably also think bitcoin is real money.
Quote | Report to administrator
Enonesoch
#65 Enonesoch 2014-02-23 17:44
But John Kerry said, climate change is "perhaps the world's most fearsome weapon of mass destruction". Surely fear-mongering-climate-change- ideologue John Kerry isn't misleading people!
Quote | Report to administrator
Billybob
#66 Billybob 2014-02-23 18:19
This is a cause for celebration!

Kool & The Gang - Celebration: youtu.be/3GwjfUFyY6M
Quote | Report to administrator
Gault Falcon
#67 Gault Falcon 2014-02-23 18:37
Quoting abinico warez:
If you think some 7+billion belching, farting, car driving humans have no effect on the planet, well you probably also think bitcoin is real money.


7 recoded ice ages followed by 7 massive global warm ups with narry a farting, SUV driving human to be found. How strange.
Quote | Report to administrator
carson lauffer
#68 carson lauffer 2014-02-23 19:24
There are two lessons to learn from this: First, follow the money. Second, why is the government shoveling money to these scam scientists? They have a religion of over population. Everything feeds into it. They try to destroy the Church because the Church does not buy into it. They are willing to destroy everyone's freedom in order to promote it.
Quote | Report to administrator
Rabbitnexus
#69 Rabbitnexus 2014-02-23 20:14
The question is rhetorical. The Canadian government will do what all the Bankster puppet governments do and ignore the facts. They will ignore this result and push the AGW hoax just the same as before. You have to realise that this has nothing to do with science and everything to do with economics. The media is completely controlled and nothing should make it more obvious than their conviction on AGW which is where the whole thing gets hijacked. If the media don't report it, the official paradigm can't change. Even if the politicians (bought puppets) were to take action on this now, the media could still ensure it goes nowhere and they would.
Quote | Report to administrator
Rabbitnexus
#70 Rabbitnexus 2014-02-23 20:19
Quoting Billybob:
This is a cause for celebration!

Kool & The Gang - Celebration: youtu.be/3GwjfUFyY6M


You reckon? I think it will be akin to peeing yourself in a dark suit. It may give one a warm sliding feeling but nobody will notice. People underestimate the degree of media control and corruption within political ranks.
Quote | Report to administrator
Rabbitnexus
#71 Rabbitnexus 2014-02-23 20:38
Quoting Jonny Perth:
This has been a fascinating read.
Here in Perth, Australia, I have been quietly touching base with the engineers in this city on theri stance regarding the global warming debate. Apart from one person, all of the engineers that I polled, agreed that the "science" behind global warming is not true science. This vindication of our knowledge and application of scientific principals simply confirms for me that true scientists simply need to keep doing what we do, which is to use the scientific principals.

Thank you Principia Scientific for posting the article and to all the contributors for you input.


I'm also a Perth resident Johnny and I wonder if like me you've noticed how the media, especially foreign media is pushing the lie we're having a severe heat wave this year? Of course the season has been one of the mildest I've seen for years and I'd notice since my business is seasonal and is reliant on the hot sunny weather and we love those heat wave days. Just haven't seen anything out of the ordinary this year on that score, yet to read the MSM you'd think we were going through the ovens.
Quote | Report to administrator
Drewski
#72 Drewski 2014-02-23 22:44
Let me get this straight Mr O'sullivan.
You are saying that Tim Ball has counter sued for $10 million and that Mann is almost bankrupt and that Mann had refused to give up his metadata - correct?

Any yet, there is no suit filed in Canada by Ball against Mann as of February 20, 2014 and Mann has publicly made his metadata available now for more than a decade and can be found right now on the internet so it seems a bit odd he would refuse to give it to Ball's lawyers. In regards to Mann's imminent bankruptcy, how would you know?
Quote | Report to administrator
wcvarones@gmail.com
#73 wcvarones@gmail.com 2014-02-23 23:06
Penn State, huh?

You could say Michael Mann "Sandusky'd" the data.
Quote | Report to administrator
liberty veritas
#74 liberty veritas 2014-02-24 04:40
Quoting abinico warez:
If you think some 7+billion belching, farting, car driving humans have no effect on the planet, well you probably also think bitcoin is real money.


Humans breathe in Oxygen and Breathe out CO2. Any advanced hydroponic grower can tell you that plants will take in all the CO2 you can feed them. Many greenhouses have a special CO2 growing room for seedlings. By providing the seedlings with additional CO2 you get bigger seedlings. All those humans breathing out CO2 provide this to the plants and trees, which in turn through the amazing process of Photosythesis convert the CO2 into plant mass and Oxygen. Those beautiful trees you see get most of their building materials from the Carbon in the air. Gives a new meaning to the term breath of life.

So, yes - the humans do have an effect, a good one. You have been indoctrinated/brainwashed with a pack of lies in school - these lies become self evident when you start to actually examine them with logic and reason. Would suggest you watch Kent Hovind - Age of the Earth on YouTube or read the book Icons of Evolution. This will require a very open mind. Also remember that you are one of those breathing humans. Would be much better if we focused on loving and taking care of one another.

Another thing I would suggest is to watch a few YouTube videos on the slum known as Kiberia and to visit your local homeless shelter and have dinner there.
Quote | Report to administrator
Stryks
#75 Stryks 2014-02-24 05:32
Quoting liberty veritas:
Humans breathe in Oxygen and Breathe out CO2. Any advanced hydroponic grower can tell you that plants will take in all the CO2 you can feed them. Many greenhouses have a special CO2 growing room for seedlings. By providing the seedlings with additional CO2 you get bigger seedlings. All those humans breathing out CO2 provide this to the plants and trees, which in turn through the amazing process of Photosythesis convert the CO2 into plant mass and Oxygen. Those beautiful trees you see get most of their building materials from the Carbon in the air. Gives a new meaning to the term breath of life.


You are correct in what you say, however I think you need to take that line of thought a little further.

Plants absorb CO2 and through the process of photosynthesis generate Oxygen and plant matter; roots, stems, leaves and
fruit.

This plant matter forms the base of the
food chain. They are eaten by animals, which are eaten by other animals, etc.

Animals such as humans.

All the carbon in our body comes either directly or indirectly from plants.

Once consumed, the cells in our bodies use this matter along with oxygen to perform cellular respiration, which in turn produces the CO2 we then exhale.

The end result of this process is that the CO2 exhaled is simply returning to where it started out.

Humans don't 'create' CO2. We're part of a carbon cycle.
Quote | Report to administrator
Stryks
#76 Stryks 2014-02-24 06:03
Quoting liberty veritas:
Any advanced hydroponic grower can tell you that plants will take in all the CO2 you can feed them. Many greenhouses have a special CO2 growing room for seedlings. By providing the seedlings with additional CO2 you get bigger seedlings.


Not on topic I know, but it's worth noting that enhanced plant growth from increased levels of CO2 is not *entirely* all it's cracked up to be.

There is no doubt that in most instances plant growth is increased with higher CO2 concentrations.

This is particularly true in a greenhouse environment, where temperature, water and nutrient levels can be strictly controlled.

However, under an open air environment, plants appear to gain much less of a boost from high CO2 levels. Assuming that drought and heat stress increases, whether by climate change or 'other', the increases are almost totally offset (the rapid growth is offset by a lack of favorable temperature and water supply).

Further, the increase in growth is not spread equally among plants. Some show good increases, some show a negligible amount.

Also worth nothing is that some studies have found that excess CO2 can make certain species of plant less nutritious for human and animal consumption. This seems to be due to the rapid plant development not allowing the plant time to absorb the required nutrients.

The downside to this is the requirement to consume more plant matter to achieve the same nutrient levels. Quite the challenge in the face of future population levels.

Possibly another concern in traditional farming environments is the idea that crops are not the only plants experiencing increased growth rates. Species which compete with food crops will also get a boost, and will no doubt make food production more difficult.

I could go on, but I think you get the drift. CO2 is definitely a cornerstone of plant growth. One of two key factors in fact, the other being water. But the whole 'increased CO2 = positive with no negative' is not a realistic position to take.
Quote | Report to administrator
Jeremy Poynton
#77 Jeremy Poynton 2014-02-24 06:28
Unsubscribe from thread link in emails goes to a broken page. Please fix, too many emails coming in
Quote | Report to administrator
carson lauffer
#78 carson lauffer 2014-02-24 07:28
I wonder if in the next twenty years someone like Mann and trumpeted by someone like Al Gore will proclaim that Oxygen is dangerous and try to limit that. It has amazed me that every school child I knew when I was growing up in the 1950-60s was taught that Carbon Dioxide is wonderful plant nourishment. We were encouraged to plant vegetables and trees and everything would balance out. I think these pseudo scientists need to get out more.
Quote | Report to administrator
liberty veritas
#79 liberty veritas 2014-02-24 08:14
Quoting Stryks:
But the whole 'increased CO2 = positive with no negative' is not a realistic position to take.


It is a closed system. Even the fossil fuels we burn were once plant matter. I probably won't find a bunch of Bible believers here - but taking the Bible as a history book, the account in Genesis shows a very different world before the flood. For instance it says that a mist came up from the ground and watered the plants, mentions windows of heaven being opened. It is possible that there was a layer of atmospheric water or ice before Noah's flood. The earth could have been one gigantic greenhouse. Longer lifespans in Genesis could have been due to more perfect DNA, less solar radiation getting through, higher atmospheric oxygen levels, who knows? After all, we are DNA copies of copies of copies of copies, etc. Just the Error correction mechanism in DNA is something amazing. Male and Female mechanism, selecting best mate. All points to an amazing creator for me. Information and programming code in DNA has to have an author.

One single plant cell that does photosynthesis is more complex than the space shuttle. Nothing can explain abiogenesis. So lets just take the position that the Bible might just be an actual history book. There are also books of the Apocrypha that are not included in the King James that give additional details.

Consider if the long lifespans in Genesis are true and look at this chart titled "Longevity Chart from Adam to Joseph". This is based on the genealogy and ages given in the Bible. It is the work of Kent Hovind. When laid out this way it becomes very interesting indeed.

www.godsholyspirit.com/creation/chart2.jpg

Consider that Noah could have known Abraham and also known Enos who would have personally known Adam. This makes the passing on of the historical record much more reliable.

King James uses the term "Son of Man". I have heard that translated as "Son of Adam". When you look at the family trees from this perspective, it becomes very interesting indeed.

Consider the very extensive family tree charts in the beginning of this 1615 Bible.

archive.org/details/biblethatisholys00lond

quite amazing. Watch some of Kent Hovind's videos and debates. I am aware of how most people view young earth creationists. If you consider Noah's flood and a possibly different pre-flood earth, things get every interesting indeed. Consider just this one segment of Hovind's videos. His debates are also fascinating.

Ice Cores and the Lost Squadron. A lesson about making presumptions and rebutting them.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue8rVSmrmZ0

The word Gospel means Truth!
Quote | Report to administrator
liberty veritas
#80 liberty veritas 2014-02-24 08:37
Our local municipality now forbids burning brush. Instead of burning, the brush is chipped, hauled off, left to decay, etc. The decay process probably does make undesirable gasses. When burnt, you get mostly CO2...which turns back into trees. CO2 is also a heavy gas, it doesn't go into the atmosphere, it sinks down where the plants can use it.

I would contend that this prohibition is a bad law, based on bad science. Burning brush used to be considered good forestry practice. Now, because people are unable to burn, it results in ugly forests, build up of bio-mass, downed trees, etc..that might eventually be a fire hazard anyway.

I have also noticed that certain mushrooms such as morels flush in the areas where brush is burned. The mycelium loves the ash and carbon in the soil. It also breaks it down. Mycelium is amazing stuff..this is the fibers that grow underground..the mushrooms are the fruit.

Here is a zillion dollar idea for the ones paying attention. It is not my idea but no one has really taken advantage of it yet.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoremediation

Will some types of mushroom mycelium decompose complex things like plastic and Styrofoam?

Here ya go, try some experiments...you might be surprised. Bonus if you find an edible species of mushroom that does this. Growing mushrooms is super fun and amazing to watch.

www.dailypaul.com/313013/growing-edible-mushrooms-from-used-coffee-grounds

Find a species that will decompose those plastic grocery bags and you will be onto something. The Fungus amungus.
Quote | Report to administrator
liberty veritas
#81 liberty veritas 2014-02-24 08:46
Quoting carson lauffer:
I wonder if in the next twenty years someone like Mann and trumpeted by someone like Al Gore will proclaim that Oxygen is dangerous and try to limit that. It has amazed me that every school child I knew when I was growing up in the 1950-60s was taught that Carbon Dioxide is wonderful plant nourishment. We were encouraged to plant vegetables and trees and everything would balance out. I think these pseudo scientists need to get out more.



A typical science experiment from a 1960's textbook I have was to take two jars, plant two seeds..fill one jar with CO2 using either dry ice or baking soda and vinegar. The CO2 is heavy and sinks down in the jar displacing any room air. Then you seal the jar with CO2 and leave the other seedling open to room air. The CO2 seedling will grow two or three times bigger than the seedling that is exposed to room air.

You won't find anything like this in modern textbooks. If you want to know where this stuff comes from, have a look at this video. It is long but worth the watch.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUYCBfmIcHM

Teaching kids lies and bad science is a very dangerous thing to do. Also Google Charlotte Iserbyt

Hopefully the internet will allow us to learn the truth of things.

Here is another gem...totally off topic but amazing when you understand what this book says and the system that was originally set up by the Founders of this nation.

archive.org/details/coinsfinancialsc00harvrich

Also google "McFadden an astounding exposure".
Quote | Report to administrator
carson lauffer
#82 carson lauffer 2014-02-24 09:38
I guess Liberty and Stryks are suggesting that if we can cut through the pseudo science and political chicanery we might actually survive and thrive. Let's pray that we can.
Quote | Report to administrator
Don Emery
#83 Don Emery 2014-02-24 17:46
What are all these commenters celebrating exactly? I must read this article very carefully to decipher what facts are actually being reported. All I can see is that two deniers have filed counterclaims, and I'm not even to certain of that, because this news is not being reported on any other, well-known, credible news outlets. I accept this may be true. However, the lead in this story couldn't be murkier: ". . . lawyers affirmed that the former golden boy of global warming alarmism had sensationally failed in his exasperating three-year bid to sue . . ." What lawyers? Where, how, and to whom did they affirm, exactly? Why isn't this fact reported elsewhere? This is the very first paragraph of the story, it's extremely vague and unprofessionally reported, and I doubt it is a fact at all. To me, it looks like the wish of the author upon which he pins all the rest of his opinions. I'm confident, unfortunately, that there's no convincing the baying multitudes that follow this column, who are intent on heralding this great "news."
Quote | Report to administrator
solvingtornadoes
#84 solvingtornadoes 2014-02-24 18:15
Quoting Don Emery:
. . .. it's extremely vague and unprofessionally reported, and I doubt it is a fact at all.
Now you know how we feel.
Quote | Report to administrator
Stryks
#85 Stryks 2014-02-24 21:55
Quoting liberty veritas:
It is a closed system. Even the fossil fuels we burn were once plant matter.


Weird that you quoted me and then totally failed to address the quote. By all means post, but I'm not sure how it was a response to me.

Quoting carson lauffer:
I guess Liberty and Stryks are suggesting that if we can cut through the pseudo science and political chicanery we might actually survive and thrive. Let's pray that we can.


That is not really what I said. I said that while you can argue positives of CO2 regarding increased plant growth, you should also acknowledge that it also has detrimental impacts.

The whole C02 = good argument is totally flawed.

Quoting Don Emery:
What are all these commenters celebrating exactly?


I ask myself the same question to be honest. It seems to just be a write up about nothing, and even then it's not presented in a factual way.

Phrases such as 'golden boy of global warming alarmism' pretty much give the game away. This non-information could not really be presented in a more biased way if you tried.

I'm surprised that even people who agree with this bias are not disturbed by what is quite clearly not any kind of objective report.
Quote | Report to administrator
liberty veritas
#86 liberty veritas 2014-02-25 01:12
All of the carbon stuff really doesn't matter. We don't follow the rules, the land never rests, the debts are never forgiven...but if we did, it would be amazing.

www.ecclesia.org/truth/sabbath-land.html
Quote | Report to administrator
Jeremy Poynton
#87 Jeremy Poynton 2014-02-25 06:23
I'm still unable to find confirmation elsewhere of this story. Can anyone help?
Quote | Report to administrator
AJ Virgo
#88 AJ Virgo 2014-02-25 06:24
The skeptics have won the debate because the public are no longer believers however the Climate Extremists are going ahead with their agenda successfully at the UN and essentially....they are winning.
Quote | Report to administrator
Dubya Bee
#89 Dubya Bee 2014-02-25 09:38
My assessment is that the MSM will not take any notice at all of this news, nor will the Obama administration. John Kerry will continue to call global warming the world's greatest WMD. Obama will still call it the most important policy priority.

They are not interested in truth. "Never let a crisis go to waste."
Quote | Report to administrator
jsullivan
#90 jsullivan 2014-02-25 11:15
Tim Ball has been cautious and made no public comments regarding Mann since the start of the case three years ago. I am an actual party in this action and thus likely to be better informed on matters than Steve McIntyre or Anthony Watts or other ill-informed commenters.

My article was in part a public challenge to Mann; I unequivocally call him a fraud and a criminal and I declared his prosecution against Dr Ball now unwinnable on a technicality, due to his unwillingness to comply with Canadian rules on evidence disclosure. I say he will not (cannot) disclose the metadata for his fraudulent 'hockey stick' graph otherwise he would likely render himself liable to criminal prosecution.

His says his reason for not showing his data is that he chooses to retain it for commercial reasons, and has declared:

“I have made available all of the research data that I am required to under United States policy as set by the National Science Foundation…. I maintain the right to decline to release any computer codes, which are my intellectual property...”

However, since publication of his "hockey stick" papers in 1998 and 1999 there is no evidence Mann has used this controversial piece of his "intellectual property" for any commercial purposes, while his legal costs in this protracted lawsuit now look set to run into the many millions. So where is the logic and economic sense in that, if his continued refusal to disclose invites further ridicule and disdain in academia and beyond?

And what has been Mann's public reaction so far to my article? I believe his response (or lack thereof) helps determine the validity of my assertions. Based on his conduct to date, Mann's libel case versus Ball is exposed for what it is - a cynical SLAPP suit.

As for Wattts, he has his own private agenda and acts with bias against Principia Scientific International (and the 'Slayers') banning all comments on his site from our members/supporters. Thankfully, even his loyal readers are now realizing that Watts is no objective honest broker. He has even banned me from emailing him. Of course, it is his life, his blog and he can do as he pleases, even if he comes across as self-serving. Meanwhile, PSI and my colleagues soldier on.

John O'Sullivan

CEO: Principia Scientific International principia-scientific.org/
Quote | Report to administrator
solvingtornadoes
#91 solvingtornadoes 2014-02-25 11:55
Quoting Jeremy Poynton:
I'm still unable to find confirmation elsewhere of this story. Can anyone help?
Why don't you contact Michael Mann and see if he will contradict anything said in the article. Doh! I forgot. What was I thinking? Michael Mann doesn't speak to the public. He only speaks to other believers. Nevermind.
Quote | Report to administrator
maud n pollock
#92 maud n pollock 2014-02-25 14:53
Thank you for these great news, as an activist against UN Agenda 21, justified by this junk science, it heartens me that all that nonsense about carbon footprint is made null and void. Now if we could take on the justification for Weather Geoengeneering, and eliminate the global spraying and dissipating of the environment through the toxins sprayed on us all. There is no longer a reason for preventing global warming by interfering with the sun, by chemtrailing or HAARP..should these issues not be something you all have considered, think about the collusion of the weather folks,who cover up the truth. Go to Geoengeneeringwatch.org for information, disclosure, documents of patents,and documentaries, including whistleblowers. Thank you all..It has made my day light and Love
Quote | Report to administrator
maud n pollock
#93 maud n pollock 2014-02-25 14:57
PS more information on solutions.
The Only Way We Can Stop Geoengineering
realitybloger.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/the-only-way-we-can-stop-geoengineering/
Quote | Report to administrator
Jeremy Poynton
#94 Jeremy Poynton 2014-02-26 04:19
#90 jsullivan 2014-02-25 11:15
=================================

So you can't conform what you attest, you are deducing that this is the case. Sorry, much as I hope that this is so, that's not enough. There is no proof of what you are saying has happened.

I await Tim Ball on this matter
Quote | Report to administrator
Jeremy Poynton
#95 Jeremy Poynton 2014-02-26 04:25
#91 solvingtornadoes 2014-02-25 11:55
Quoting Jeremy Poynton:
=====================

WTF is your problem? Is it that odd to ask for proof of a story? So far - much as I hope that what John attests is true - there is no proof of it, other than wishful thinking. Anywhere.
Quote | Report to administrator
Conrad Dunkerson
#96 Conrad Dunkerson 2014-02-26 11:40
Mann and his lawyer say John's claims above are all "preposterous";

www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/662080770514795?stream_ref=10

This is great. Either the case is over or it isn't. Whichever side is wrong about that is clearly either lying or downright insane. I'm sure we all look forward to seeing incontrovertible proof of just who has been telling the truth.
Quote | Report to administrator
solvingtornadoes
#97 solvingtornadoes 2014-02-26 12:08
Quoting Jeremy Poynton:
#91 solvingtornadoes 2014-02-25 11:55
Quoting Jeremy Poynton:
=====================

WTF is your problem? Is it that odd to ask for proof of a story? So far - much as I hope that what John attests is true - there is no proof of it, other than wishful thinking. Anywhere.
No, it's not odd to ask for proof. And I apologize if it seems my sarcasm is directed at you. My point is that Mann and his cohorts have been evading these kinds of insinuations/accusations for years by simply ignoring the insinuation/accusation and hiding behind the mantle of environmental activism, painting themselves as Martyrs for their cause.
Quote | Report to administrator
solvingtornadoes
#98 solvingtornadoes 2014-02-26 12:35
Quoting Conrad Dunkerson:
Mann and his lawyer say John's claims above are all "preposterous";

www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/662080770514795?stream_ref=10

This is great. Either the case is over or it isn't. Whichever side is wrong about that is clearly either lying or downright insane. I'm sure we all look forward to seeing incontrovertible proof of just who has been telling the truth.


" . . . that Dr. Mann has refused to show his metadata and calculations in open court is not true." February 22, 2014; Roger D. McConchie, Barrister and Solicitor; Legal Counsel to Dr. Michael Mann

Note the wording of McConchie's statement. He says that Mann hasn't refused to show his metadata and calculations "in open court." Note the doublespeak: since the case hasn't gone to trial (that being "open court") this statement is both true and meaningless.

Why would a lawyer make a public statement about his client or his clients situation that is meaningless? Is it possible that McConchie is unaware that his statement is meaningless? Not likely, IMO. It is more likely, IMO, that he knows his statement is meaningless and he also knows that most people will read that statement and conclude that Mann has already supplied this metadata, which couldn't be farther from the truth.
Quote | Report to administrator
Ofay Cat
#99 Ofay Cat 2014-02-27 11:46
Do not count on governments to prosecute these gargantuan crimes agains tax-payer, farmers whomever .... because they were hoping to use the climate thingy to get further into our wallets. They just lost a huge cash cow, but don't worry, there is always bank account and retirement fund confiscation ... coming soon.

We need a revolution, or a famine ... a big global slap upside the head.
Quote | Report to administrator
billhowell
#100 billhowell 2014-02-27 11:50
Great work, John O'Sullivan and colleagues/ supporters. After a few decades of disgust with mainstream scientists and government/academic scientific institutions, probably many like myself no longer follow the ongoing scince scams day-by-day, but its essential that some people do! This pursuit cannot be done by "official" government nor academic institutions, nor by their scientists, either in terms of [fear, constraints, talent], and without the internet I wonder how well the follow-ups would work. Tim Ball is actually one of the great exceptions (albeit he may be retired now?).
Quote | Report to administrator
Patsplace
#101 Patsplace 2014-02-27 11:57
Snakes have a nasty habit of "appearing" dead and you're never sure until the head is removed. Here's hoping this critter will never move again.
Quote | Report to administrator
Markon
#102 Markon 2014-02-27 14:15
Way to go Mr. Ball!!! May we finally see some true Carbon justice.
Quote | Report to administrator
BB
#103 BB 2014-02-28 19:03
Quoting carson lauffer:
I wonder if in the next twenty years someone like Mann and trumpeted by someone like Al Gore will proclaim that Oxygen is dangerous and try to limit that. It has amazed me that every school child I knew when I was growing up in the 1950-60s was taught that Carbon Dioxide is wonderful plant nourishment. We were encouraged to plant vegetables and trees and everything would balance out. I think these pseudo scientists need to get out more.


You just nailed it.
Can we just kindly reflect on the absolute absurdity of that position ? e.g. oxygen.
Yeah dudes, OXE-e-gen is bad
Yeah dudes, KarbinDieOXEi'd is bad
Trillions already wasted,
Precious mental and emotional energy wasted,
The death toll of this farce is unbelievable to behold.



And yet, that is our present condition, carbon dioxide is life
Quote | Report to administrator
John Walsh
#104 John Walsh 2014-02-28 23:15
Speaking of 'Dr' Andrew Weaver, the airhead voters in Victoria, BC - Oak Bay/Gordon Head riding to be specific, actually elected this wretch as their MLA in the BC Legislature! But remember, the FACTS mean absolutely NOTHING to lefties. They will ignore this setback. The leftist mainstream media won't cover it. Ignorant voters are too damned lazy to get the facts for themselves, so you can expect business as usual from the left. This whole global warming scam has been a Soviet disinformation campaign right from the start, filled with lies, deceit, bullying, trickery, and intimidation. Will the province of BC, in Canada now DROP it's infamous carbon tax based on these revelations? February's natural gas bill contained a $57 charge labelled 'Carbon Tax'. And I'm just on of 6 million people in this province. Bottom line - the war against these lefties is absolutely not over.
Quote | Report to administrator
eadler2
#105 eadler2 2014-03-04 14:04
It isn't clear what planet John O'Sullivan is living on. The fact that Steyn has counter-sued Mann is not proof of anything.

Mann hasn't lost his case against Steyn.
Mann's suit was sent forward to discovery mode by the judge. Mann has not lost his suit against Tim Ball, it is going forward to the discovery phase also.

Finally, I would advise O'Sullivan against calling Mann a "common criminal, a fraudster" as he has just done. He could get sued for defamation of character and lose.
Quote | Report to administrator
C Sharp
#106 C Sharp 2014-03-04 14:40
There seems to be a couple of very important principals here. That is
we need the courts to decide on political disputes and to be the
ultimate peer review, like we need a big hole in the head. We also
need freedom of speech for everyone.

The fact that environmentalists resort so readily to court action and
threats, just exposes that they have no confidence in their own
arguments. Environmentalism is more akin to a cult which knows the
game is up.

We should know better than trying to win the argument by pursuing them
in court.
Quote | Report to administrator
Don Emery
#107 Don Emery 2014-03-04 15:21
Thanks to eadler2 for his clarifications, above. I had expressed my own doubts about this article on 24Feb14, but I had no direct information about the lawsuit as provided by eadler2. I'm now completely satisfied that this so-called news item is just a pile of baloney.
To all you ditto-heads who chimed in your approval, I strongly suspect that none of you are scientists of any stripe, and certainly not climate scientists, and your confidence that climate science is junk science must be based solely upon what others have said -- others equally uninformed, no doubt -- and your readiness to agree merely reflects your bias against science and respectable news gathering. You should take a moment to reflect that this story was not reported elsewhere. How did John O'Sullivan get such an exclusive? And why didn't any mainstream news organizations pick it up? Your idea that mainstream media is just as dishonest as climate scientists indicates a social paranoia for which you should seek treatment, or at least take time to reflect why you are absolutely right while thousands of qualified scientists are wrong, and the only news organizations you can trust are off-the-wall bullshit mills like Principia Scientific International. Wake up and join the real world, please.
Quote | Report to administrator
#108 Guest 2014-03-16 10:23
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
#109 Guest 2014-03-16 10:24
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
#110 Guest 2014-03-16 10:25
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
john
#111 john 2014-03-16 11:57
Quoting C Sharp:
T
we need the courts to decide on political disputes and to be the
ultimate peer review, like we need a big hole in the head. o .



For the ultimate peer review see-
www.piers.org.uk/ & www.piers.org.uk/pierpages/NPS0international.html
Quote | Report to administrator
RightWingNuclearArmedDeathRabb
#112 RightWingNuclearArmedDeathRabb 2014-04-25 05:00
Its about bloody time. Never has there been a bigger bunch of thieving carpetbaggers in the history of the world, than these bunch of scumbags
They have become obscenely wealthy, by promoting a lie, and the moronic socialist lead governments around the world, along with the U.N and their affiliated bodies must all be held to account
Quote | Report to administrator
Doug  Cotton
#113 Doug  Cotton 2014-04-25 08:24
Well said RWNADR. Similar to what I wrote in my book ...

Chapter 2 - A slice of history

The world will one day look back upon a small slice of history that began in the 1980's and sadly have to conclude that never in the name of science have so many people been so seriously misled by so few for so long. Never have so many careers, so much time and so much money been spent in the pursuit of such a misguided and ineffective goal to reduce human emissions of carbon dioxide, a harmless gas which comprises about one molecule in every two and a half thousand other molecules in the atmosphere of our planet, Earth.

The author is very much aware of the arguments put forward and the extent of vested interests dependent upon those billions of dollars of government funds shelled out in the belief that “the science is settled” and now we must get on with the task of “saving the planet” by cutting “carbon” emissions no matter what the cost to society. He is also aware from personal experience in debate with many hundreds of believers and so-called “deniers” that very, very few exhibit a valid understanding of the relevant physics and physical laws in the field of thermodynamics.
Quote | Report to administrator
maud n pollock
#114 maud n pollock 2014-04-26 16:08
This says it all, the fact that they have been creating our climate and manipulating it for over 20 years, makes Obama a "johnny come lately," but now they can poison our planet and us, legally because that man said it outright.So much for global warming and climate change. Go to Geoengeneeringwatch.com for the truth... Obama Takes Bold Step to Geoengineer Climate Change
Posted: 04/01/2014 11:48 am EDT Updated: 04/01/2014 12:59 pm ED

www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-chameides/obama-takes-bold-step-to_b_5069973.html
Quote | Report to administrator
Don Emery
#115 Don Emery 2014-04-26 18:44
maud n pollock, you are a moron, I'm afraid. I become so disheartened when I read comment after comment by people who have practically no background or understanding of science who are nonetheless dead certain that the climate science is wrong. MaudNPollock, the article you reference to support your contentions -- you poor, ignorant fool -- that article is an April Fool's joke. Note the date of publication, first, but even missing that detail, the explanation of the method of geoengineering in this joke article is laughably ridiculous -- except, of course, to someone who doesn't understand the first thing about nanofibers, the jet stream, commercial airlines . . . basically someone with a less-than-grade-school understanding of science and technology. Let this be a lesson to you and all who read your comments and accept them as credible, The lesson is: You are not competent to reach scientific conclusions, so please leave this to the qualified climate scientists, and know this . . . man-made global warming and consequent climate change is real and very dangerous. Please respect those who are devoting their lives and careers to this field and respect the fact that the direction we are heading is quite grave. We don't need more misguided, ignorant input from the peanut gallery, especially as there are so many up there more than willing to believe nonsense and doubt scientists.
Quote | Report to administrator
john
#116 john 2014-04-26 19:49
Don Emery,
Thanks for that,you certainly know how to put these guys down!!
I now know that 'man-made global warming and consequent climate change is real and very dangerous', what data can we use to prove to the skeptics that the run-away catastrophic heat build-up has been happening for the last 17yrs, If we can find something, anything that proves that, we can shut them up & get on with preparing for the Armageddon that surely awaits us.
Quote | Report to administrator
Pat Obar
#117 Pat Obar 2014-04-26 23:01
Quoting john:
Don Emery,
Thanks for that,you certainly know how to put these guys down!!
I now know that 'man-made global warming and consequent climate change is real and very dangerous', what data can we use to prove to the skeptics that the run-away catastrophic heat build-up has been happening for the last 17yrs, If we can find something, anything that proves that, we can shut them up & get on with preparing for the Armageddon that surely awaits us.

John,
Very good. Continue to pull your pud in the cloakroom! Skeptics need such as you, so we will not get distracted by nonsense!
Quote | Report to administrator
Stryks
#118 Stryks 2014-04-26 23:16
Quoting john:
What data can we use to prove to the skeptics that the run-away catastrophic heat build-up has been happening for the last 17yrs, If we can find something, anything that proves that ...


While I recognize the sarcasm (not hard given you're about as subtle as a thrown brick), I think you'll be hard pressed to find *any* evidence which a denialist (not a true skeptic, who can in fact be moved by evidence) will accept.

That is kind of the point. Evidence that warming has not stopped is thick on the ground, and the only ones not seeing it are those who are pointedly not looking.

More than 90% of global warming heat goes into warming the oceans, so the first things you have to do is stop them looking for the warming using purely surface air temperatures.

So you could point them here to see the bigger picture.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD012105/abstract

When they refuse to let go of their myopic focus on surface air temperatures, you could then point them here.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.2297/abstract

The discussion will no doubt still hinge on 1998 marking a stalling point in climate change, despite the previous two papers which demonstrate this is not the case.

To demonstrate the flaw with this view, you can point out that 1998 was an anomalously warm year thanks to El Nino, and then present the evidence which takes this into account.

(Article by Robert Fawcett about a third of the way in)

www.amos.org.au/documents/item/82

This article identifies 2005 as the hottest year on record, which was subsequently tied by 2010.

For a broader overview of all the evidence we then turn to Foster and Rahmstorf (2011).

iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022

We could, of course, go on and on. As I said, the evidence is thick on the ground.

But the real point is that denialists will not look at the evidence, or usually even admit its existence.

What they tend to do is repeatedly call for evidence, trying to imply that it cannot be produced because it does not exist. Then, when produced, they totally ignore it and simply re-state their previous position (for which they can not produce any substantive evidence at all).

Oh hang on, I see what you did there ...
Quote | Report to administrator
Claudius Denk
#119 Claudius Denk 2014-04-27 00:16
Quoting Stryks:

We could, of course, go on and on. As I said, the evidence is thick on the ground.

Be careful not to step in it.
Quote | Report to administrator
Stryks
#120 Stryks 2014-04-27 00:46
Quoting Claudius Denk:
Be careful not to step in it.


Given it's abundance, the wonder is that we aren't drowning in it.

Yet even this is missed by those intent on burying their heads in the sand.
Quote | Report to administrator
Claudius Denk
#121 Claudius Denk 2014-04-27 01:25
Quoting Stryks:
Quoting Claudius Denk:
Be careful not to step in it.


Given it's abundance, the wonder is that we aren't drowning in it.

Yet even this is missed by those intent on burying their heads in the sand.

You mean, like, people that refuse to debate?
Quote | Report to administrator
Stryks
#122 Stryks 2014-04-27 02:07
Quoting Claudius Denk:
You mean, like, people that refuse to debate?


No, not specifically those who refuse to debate. Who knows what the views of those who refuse to debate are. Pretty much by definition, they are not part of this discussion.

Those who feel the need to respond but have nothing more to contribute other than cryptic quips, sure.

I mean, how else besides 'burying ones head in the sand' should I consider someone who reads my post #118 and finds the most noteworthy section to be "We could, of course, go on and on. As I said, the evidence is thick on the ground"?

I make no specific claim, but I suggest that the section which should have been of more interest to you was the part which read "But the real point is that denialists will not look at the evidence, or usually even admit its existence."


That was, after all, the underlying point of my response.

The person asked for evidence, I supplied it, with the rider that those who deny the existence of evidence supporting climate change will not be swayed by more evidence.

This is why I find it ironic that your response in no way addresses the issue or the evidence supporting it, but instead seeks only to engage me.
Quote | Report to administrator
Maud N Pollock
#123 Maud N Pollock 2014-04-27 10:58
Dear Don Emery : I don't go around calling people names, unless I know what they know, you are the moron, you are the denier, all you have to do is look up at the sky and see the spraying of the chemtrails all over our country, do you want to attribute this to Global warming? Do you really think that we humans have the right to manipulate our planet's weather as the military is doing using HAARP? Do you know anything about these things? Look them up, look up, unless you live in a cave. Or most likely you are a shill. When the weather scientists start including the manipulation of the weather and its effects on our planet, that is when they will have real credibility www.chemtrailcentral.com/ Chemtrails: Geoengineering is Not the Answer to Climate Change Chemtrails: How Public Law 105-85 Permits Chemtrails & Bio-Warfare..How Public Law 105-85 Permits Chemtrails and Bio Warfare Against Americans (+ VIDEO 12:01)

PUBLIC LAW 105-85, Bio Warfare & Population Reduction funded by the Dept. of Defense (Complete PDF)

Posted by youtube user: JohnJDeHart68

Forum: Orbis Vitae

Ignorance of the Law (to spray toxins) is no Excuse

This 1978 NDAA public law signed by Pres., Bill Clinton was promoted as legislation to modernize military medical records through electronic networking. But hidden inside this bill is the literal “poison pill” that allows chemical and biological weapons testing on American citizens.
Implied consent is consent which is not expressly granted by a person, but rather inferred from a person’s actions and ...Obama Takes Bold Step to Geoengineer Climate Change www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-chameides/obama-takes-bold-step-to_b_5069973.html
Quote | Report to administrator
Claudius Denk
#124 Claudius Denk 2014-04-27 11:04
Quoting Stryks:
Quoting Claudius Denk:
You mean, like, people that refuse to debate?


No, not specifically those who refuse to debate. Who knows what the views of those who refuse to debate are. Pretty much by definition, they are not part of this discussion.



Skeptics never refuse to debate. Only believers refuse to debate. And only when it involves things the believers don't want the public to know about. For example, believers never discuss the fact that CO2 forcing is immeasurable. They also refuse to discuss the fact that things that are immeasurable are untestable. Believers want the public to believe things that are demonstrably false. Believers don't debate because it is the only way they/you can hide the dishonesty of their agenda.
Quote | Report to administrator
Maud N Pollock
#125 Maud N Pollock 2014-04-27 11:30
To quote Wayne J. (Wayne_Jett) who commented on the article in the Huffington Post " Radical climate change is actually occurring, but the principal causative factor is not industrial pollution, ordinary human activities or bovine flatulence. Scientific evidence is overwhelmingly persuasive that geoengineering activities are presently drastically modifying our weather patterns and climatic systems with highly dangerous and destructive effects. The EPA specifically excludes jet aircraft emissions from its jurisdiction, and does not test air or water for aluminum, strontium or barium, which are the metal nano-particulates most used in aerosols sprayed from nozzles installed on those aircraft. Most aircraft used are unmarked and used entirely for geoengineering activities, although some commercial aircraft are used.

Choosing to make an April Fool's spoof out of such a toxic, anti-social activity as global spraying of toxic aerosols - especially when the topic ought to be well within the knowledge of the author - takes an awful type of recklessness. The author should take a look at the evidence presented at geoengineeringwatch.org and undertake to de-bunk that. Anything less is simply unworthy of any reputable university. " So much for that it says it better than I could, however it is strange that the Huffington Post did not disavow an "April fools Joke" or that the White House did not have such information taken down, because Joke or not, it happens to serve the Government. It can hide behind PUBLIC LAW 105-85,which is about making a public announcement of Geoengeneering, and if nobody says "You can't do that" then this becomes consent by default.
Quote | Report to administrator
Don Emery
#126 Don Emery 2014-04-27 12:09
Maud N Pollock: Proffering more ridiculous conspiracy theories -- such as ChemTrails and HAARP -- only re-confirm that you are a person who is far too ready to accept outlandish assertions that are not supported by any evidence. Personally, I agree with your condemnation of the April Fool's article because I know that AGW is factual and dangerous and I would prefer not to muddle the info-sphere with jokes. But . . . you provide no explanation for why you bought the joke article hook, line, and sinker. The explanation for how Obama is manipulating the weather (excerpted below) is patently ridiculous, but you and others who are already decided upon a variety of ridiculous conspiracy theories, show just how shallow your understanding truly is when you read and accept this technique as factual, or even possible.

* * * * *
Key to the program were apparently specially designed flexible cords made out of nanofibers (basically high-tech bungee cords) and a personnel team from the Navy, Air Force, and U.S. Weather Service. Unwitting participants included: the airline industry and anyone who took a transcontinental flight this winter. NSA expert James Winkywinc explained that the program exemplified the spirit of military/civilian partnership even if the partnership was a secret to the public participants. Through a process that remains top secret, the Navy and Air Force tied one end of the bungee-like cords to commercial jets and the other to the jet stream and then used the jets' trajectory to pull that baby southward to form the polar vortex.
* * * * *

You are in a deep denial where conspiracy theories -- no matter how ridiculous and unsupported by facts, no matter how many times they are debunked by responsible scientists -- have become your adopted reality. This misguided April Fool's article, ChemTrails, and HAARP are all of the same cloth: Stupid, unscientific malarky, the latter two aimed at a tiny fraction of the population ready to believe anything the indicates a nefarious federal government. I'm suprised you haven't yet mentioned that free-loading nincompoop Cliven Bundy.
I agree with one thing: You are not a moron. A moron wouldn't be capable of digesting all this (mis)information, and wouldn't have any strongly held opinions. What you are is worse, perhaps, because you are probably capable of knowing better than to believe this Internet clap-trap, but instead you embrace it without sufficient critical thought. Critical thought would have shown you that the described method of climate manipulation was impossible, and might have lead you to suspect "NSA expert James Winkywinc."
Please consider one thing above all. A conspiracy of scientists to deceive the public IS NOT POSSIBLE. Conspiracies rarely succeed, even with just two or three conspiring parties. With thousands around the world . . . impossible. The fastest way to succeed and make a name for oneself in science is to disprove generally accepted wisdom or theories. None of the deniers you read are actual climate scientists, conducting research to disprove AGW. No, they are Internet hacks or scientists in other fields who are NOT CONDUCTING ANY RESEARCH OF THEIR OWN.
Quote | Report to administrator
Stryks
#127 Stryks 2014-04-27 22:08
Quoting Claudius Denk:
... CO2 forcing is immeasurable. ... things that are immeasurable are untestable.


Let's ignore the rhetoric for the time being shall we. Believers, skeptics, denialists ... meh. It's just foreplay to what is the real issue here.

All I will say is that I think you're a bit confused about what the terms mean, let alone to which group you might belong.

But to address the quoted comments ...

The amount of warming caused by the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 may be one of the most misunderstood subjects in climate science. Many people think the anthropogenic warming can't be quantified, many others think it must be an insignificant amount. However, climate scientists have indeed quantified the anthropogenic contribution to global warming using empirical observations and fundamental physical equations.

If I provide evidence, will you even try to take it in?

www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-3.html

www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5958/1394.abstract

www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n1/abs/ngeo1327.html

Meh ... do I go on?

Yes, I have a belief that climate change is real. This belief is informed by credible science.

You seem not to share my belief, which by definition indicates that you have an alternate belief.

What precisely informs your belief.

Quoting Claudius Denk:
... demonstrably false.


Can you please indicate where climate change theory has been conclusively demonstrated to be false?
Quote | Report to administrator
Claudius Denk
#128 Claudius Denk 2014-04-28 00:28
Quoting Stryks:
Quoting Claudius Denk:
believers never discuss the fact that CO2 forcing is immeasurable. They also refuse to discuss the fact that things that are immeasurable are untestable.

Let's ignore the rhetoric . . .


I'm not trying to tell you what you should believe.
Quote | Report to administrator
Stryks
#129 Stryks 2014-04-28 02:49
Quoting Claudius Denk:
I'm not trying to tell you what you should believe.


I'm not sure your intent (or lack of) is pertinent to this thread.
Quote | Report to administrator
Claudius Denk
#130 Claudius Denk 2014-04-28 09:38
If you choose to believe something is true despite facts to the contrary there isn't much anybody can do about it.
Quote | Report to administrator
Aye Its Grim up North
#131 Aye Its Grim up North 2014-04-28 18:42
Quoting Stryks:


Yes, I have a belief that climate change is real. This belief is informed by credible science.

You seem not to share my belief, which by definition indicates that you have an alternate belief.

What precisely informs your belief.


Science is based on facts, it's not a beleif system

Lots of data proves climate change is real BUT no credible data to prove catastrophic man-made global warming....Mr Mann says he's got some but wont show it !!! & the IPCC keeps changing the settled science.

Unlike mann, Nature has an annoying habit of ALWAYS being right.
Quote | Report to administrator
Stryks
#132 Stryks 2014-04-28 20:04
Quoting Claudius Denk:
If you choose to believe something is true despite facts to the contrary there isn't much anybody can do about it.


Strange. I see no facts in any of your posts. I have posted links to some of the more credible information available.

What does it say about you if you deny it exists?

Quoting Aye Its Grim up North:

Science is based on facts, it's not a beleif system


I think you may have it bass ackwards. Belief exists whether it has any basis in fact or not. Go ahead, form a new opinion. It is generated based on your beliefs and will in turn, be used as a basis for supporting your beliefs.

The problem with belief is that it often used in the context of faith, which is belief in the absence of evidence (or even the possibility of evidence).

I, on the other hand, am quite willing to change my beliefs given evidence shows that my current information is incorrect. I'm not going on faith. I'm going on scientific evidence, which is the best information we have available. It's that or .. what?

So, we get back to the question. You have stated the position that I am incorrect. This indicates a contrary belief. What informs your belief?

Quoting Aye Its Grim up North:
Lots of data proves climate change is real BUT no credible data to prove catastrophic man-made global warming....Mr Mann says he's got some but wont show it !!! & the IPCC keeps changing the settled science.


Yeah, you might want to review the links already posted above.

Mann is one scientist, and we can disregard his input and still the science reaches the same findings. But if he is such a poor scientist, perhaps you would like to take this opportunity to falsify some of his work.

Quoting Aye Its Grim up North:
The IPCC keeps changing the settled science.


Firstly, the IPCC would never say the science is settled. They would not do so for the same reason the scientists don't offer definitive statements and usually provide margins of error in their work. The science evolves as more information becomes available and new methods are found to validate previous findings. By it's very nature, climate change theory MUST change with the empirical data.

Climate change theory explains the data, not the other way around. If you're expecting 'settled science' then you don't understand science.

But climate change theory hasn't changed substantially despite large scale research for over 30 years. The vast majority of current research supports it. What you should be taking from this is that there has been nothing found to falsify it.

Of course, if you can provide this falsification, then you're all set.
Quote | Report to administrator
Claudius Denk
#133 Claudius Denk 2014-04-29 09:16
Quoting Stryks:
Quoting Stryks:
[quote name="Claudius Denk"]If you choose to believe something is true despite facts to the contrary there isn't much anybody can do about it.


Strange. I see no facts in any of your posts. I have posted links to some of the more credible information available.
None of your links explained how it is you test something you can't measure.
Quoting Stryks:
I am quite willing to change my beliefs given evidence shows that my current information is incorrect.
With this quote you advertise you are not a scientists. Scientists stay agnostic until their attempts to refute a notion through experiment has failed multiple times. You conceded that you have never attempted to refute the assertion yet you certainly are not agnostic. You are a believer.Quoting Stryks:

I'm not going on faith. I'm going on scientific evidence, which is the best information we have available.
By your own admission your conclusion that CO2 causes atmospheric warming was arrived at with zero scientific evidence in that you conceded that the notion is untestable.Quoting Stryks:
It's that or .. what?

So, we get back to the question. You have stated the position that I am incorrect. This indicates a contrary belief. What informs your belief?
Quoting Stryks:
Climate change theory hasn't changed substantially despite large scale research for over 30 years.
It's equally untestable as ever, I guess. Quoting Stryks:
The vast majority of current research supports it.
Don't all religions make the same claim?Quoting Stryks:


What you should be taking from this is that there has been nothing found to falsify it.
Bigfoot researchers make the same claim.Quoting Stryks:


Of course, if you can provide this falsification, then you're all set.
By your own admission it is not falsifyable. Only things that are falsifyable and that have actually been tested empirically are scientifically valiid.
Quote | Report to administrator
maud n pollock
#134 maud n pollock 2014-04-29 11:00
Just thought you all should know about a more earth bound very dangerous local situation take a look at this documentary about Smart Meters, another "conspiracy Theory" that is reality. This is for your health, you families and the health of our environment. Have a good day y'all...
www.takebackyourpower.net/
Quote | Report to administrator
Stryks
#135 Stryks 2014-05-05 01:48
Part 1 of 2

Quoting Claudius Denk:
None of your links explained how it is you test something you can't measure.


Actually ... you should go take another look. The links provided show explicitly how we can take empirical measurements of CO2 levels, the amount of atmospheric CO2 from human activity, the levels of inbound and outbound radiation and the wavelengths of each, and how these go together using simple, well understood physics to create a rather clear picture of the climactic mechanisms in place.

Strange you didn't see that. It's like you didn't read them or something.

But with that evidence provided, I think we can dispense with the claim of 'zero scientific evidence'. What has been presented is but a fraction of the total evidence, and it is in no way dependent on what I believe or accept. It IS scientific evidence, and your refusal to accept it speaks volumes.

Quoting Claudius Denk:
With this quote you advertise you are not a scientists. Scientists stay agnostic until their attempts to refute a notion through experiment has failed multiple times. You conceded that you have never attempted to refute the assertion yet you certainly are not agnostic. You are a believer.


Odd. You defend the scientific process. You actually state one of the major reasons why scientific evidence is the best information we have available. All the while, you are trying to deny what the science tells us, apparently refusing even to acknowledge it's existence.

Then, it seems like you want to discredit me by pointing out that I am not on the pedestal you have carved out for scientists. Why is that? Do you think that if someone with low credibility (in your eyes) makes a statement you disagree with, you can just discard it regardless of who else makes the exact same assertion?

Again, odd.

And, as much fun as it may be to play a game of 'pin the label on the person', I suggest that it is, at best, a distraction.

I challenge you to come up with a broad definition of someone who has an opinion on this topic which covers only one side of this debate. For some reason you seem to want to latch onto 'believer'. As I have repeatedly mentioned, I'm happy for you to categorize me as such if you feel so inclined, so long as you can accept that if I am a believer for having an opinion, then so are you. After all, you clearly have a belief that I am wrong.

Quoting Claudius Denk:
It's equally untestable as ever, I guess.


See above. Measurable and testable. All consistent with man made climate change. Indeed, the vast majority of current climate science falls into this category. It is not contradictory. It is not discordant. At worst, current climate science varies only in terms of the impact, and we're tracking well towards the 'worst-case' scenarios.
Quote | Report to administrator
Stryks
#136 Stryks 2014-05-05 01:49
Part 2 of 2

Quoting Claudius Denk:
Don't all religions make the same claim?


Ummmm .... No. Pretty much universally, no.

As an example, what evidence is provided in the bible for ... well ... pretty much any of the individual stories?

You have to either read it as a literal truth with the facts as stated going unquestioned, or read it as a series of parables with an underlying 'lesson' or 'truth'. Either way, there is plenty of faith, but no evidence presented.

You seem to want to turn this into a discussion on religion, belief, and faith.

My comment is that, if anything, I am a rationalist:

Rationalist: Someone who emphasizes observable facts and excludes metaphysical speculation about origins or ultimate causes

As noted above, this is pretty much the antithesis of the religious.

I have a belief based on reason, logic, and evidence. This evidence is copious, thoroughly tested, and has an extremely high probability of accuracy. It is the best evidence that we have available (as you appear to agree, give your glowing comments on scientists).

Quoting Claudius Denk:
Bigfoot researchers make the same claim. (RE: request for falsification of climate science)


This indeed may be true, but the lack of falsification does not logically lead to the conclusion that Bigfoot is false. If, on the other hand, we had empirical evidence of footprints matching the proposed existence of bigfoot, the next step would be to find what would be the source of the footprints should the bigfoot theory be false. This is the null hypothesis, and is an established part of the scientific method (determining what that outcome would be if the theory were false).

It may surprise you to know that researchers looking for the Yeti were the ones to explain how huge Yeti shaped footprints were formed in the snow (wolf tracks made during the night melt to form a large elongated print due to the angle and duration of the morning sun). This is what happens when the null hypothesis explains the observed phenomenon.

In the case of climate change, there is nothing which even comes close to explaining the empirical measurements without the interaction of CO2. The null hypothesis has been shown to be inconsistent with the facts. With this in mind, you will see that the onus is on you (or anyone who disputes climate change theory as it stands) to falsify CO2 as the cause of the known anomalies given the null hypothesis is invalid.

Quoting Claudius Denk:
By your own admission it is not falsifyable. Only things that are falsifyable and that have actually been tested empirically are scientifically valiid.


Of course it is falsifiable. Simply provide evidence of an alternate mechanism which can explain the observed climatic anomalies better than CO2 can, while simultaneously showing how CO2 can be a known greenhouse gas, present in ever growing atmospheric concentrations, and NOT be causing climate change via understood mechanisms.
Quote | Report to administrator
Claudius Denk
#137 Claudius Denk 2014-05-05 02:13
Quoting Stryks:
Part 1 of 2

Quoting Claudius Denk:
None of your links explained how it is you test something you can't measure.


Actually ... you should go take another look.
I did. As I stated, none of your links explained how it is you test something you can't measure.Quoting Stryks:
The links provided show explicitly how we can take empirical measurements of CO2 levels, the amount of atmospheric CO2 from human activity, the levels of inbound and outbound radiation and the wavelengths of each, and how these go together using simple, well understood physics to create a rather clear picture of the climactic mechanisms in place.
Strange you didn't see that. It's like you didn't read them or something.
You AGW advocates are like used car salesmen. You sidestep the real issue and discuss something that sound similar. All you frauds have is tactics.Quoting Stryks:


Quoting Claudius Denk:
With this quote you advertise you are not a scientists. Scientists stay agnostic until their attempts to refute a notion through experiment has failed multiple times. You conceded that you have never attempted to refute the assertion yet you certainly are not agnostic. You are a believer.


Odd. You defend the scientific process. You actually state one of the major reasons why scientific evidence is the best information we have available. All the while, you are trying to deny what the science tells us, apparently refusing even to acknowledge it's existence.
Explain to us how you test something you can't measure or kindly go away.Quoting Stryks:


Then, it seems like you want to discredit me
If you want to be treated with respect you need to stop fibbing.Quoting Stryks:


Again, odd.

And, as much fun as it may be to play a game of 'pin the label on the person', I suggest that it is, at best, a distraction.

I challenge you to come up with a broad definition of someone who has an opinion on this topic which covers only one side of this debate.
Quoting Claudius Denk:
It's equally untestable as ever, I guess.


See above. Measurable and testable. All consistent with man made climate change. Indeed, the vast majority of current climate science falls into this category. It is not contradictory. It is not discordant. At worst, current climate science varies only in terms of the impact, and we're tracking well towards the 'worst-case' scenarios.
I wouldn't pretend to argue with your imagination.
Quote | Report to administrator
Claudius Denk
#138 Claudius Denk 2014-05-05 02:47
Quoting Stryks:
This evidence is copious, thoroughly tested,
Tell us how you test something you can't measure.Quoting Stryks:
and has an extremely high probability of accuracy. It is the best evidence that we have available (as you appear to agree, give your glowing comments on scientists).

Quoting Claudius Denk:
Bigfoot researchers make the same claim. (RE: request for falsification of climate science)


This indeed may be true, but the lack of falsification does not logically lead to the conclusion that Bigfoot is false.
Which is exactly my point. It's not falsifyable. Quoting Stryks:
If, on the other hand, we had empirical evidence of footprints matching the proposed existence of bigfoot, the next step would be to find what would be the source of the footprints should the bigfoot theory be false. This is the null hypothesis, and is an established part of the scientific method (determining what that outcome would be if the theory were false).

It may surprise you to know that researchers looking for the Yeti were the ones to explain how huge Yeti shaped footprints were formed in the snow (wolf tracks made during the night melt to form a large elongated print due to the angle and duration of the morning sun). This is what happens when the null hypothesis explains the observed phenomenon.

In the case of climate change, there is nothing which even comes close to explaining the empirical measurements
There is no such thing as an "empirical" measurement.Quoting Stryks:
without the interaction of CO2. The null hypothesis has been shown to be inconsistent with the facts. With this in mind, you will see that the onus is on you (or anyone who disputes climate change theory as it stands) to falsify CO2 as the cause of the known anomalies given the null hypothesis is invalid.
Your imagination is not evidence.Quoting Stryks:


Quoting Claudius Denk:
By your own admission it is not falsifyable. Only things that are falsifyable and that have actually been tested empirically are scientifically valiid.


Of course it is falsifiable. Simply provide evidence of an alternate mechanism which can explain the observed climatic anomalies better than CO2 can,
It's not my job to explain your delusions.Quoting Stryks:
while simultaneously showing how CO2 can be a known greenhouse gas, present in ever growing atmospheric concentrations, and NOT be causing climate change via understood mechanisms.
You mean the mechanism that you admitted you cannot measure? It's not possible to dispute/refute something that exists only in your imagination. It's not necessary either.
Quote | Report to administrator
Stryks
#139 Stryks 2014-05-05 03:27
So ... If I'm reading you correctly, the direct measurements shown in the scientific papers I linked to do not qualify as evidence in your eyes?

May I ask, if direct measurement does not count as empirical evidence, what does?

You know, empirical evidence.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

I could quote it out, but meh ... But I take it then that you're done with any kind of counter argument and would prefer just to start calling me names?

It's not your job to explain my 'delusions', I agree. But you should at least explain yours if you wish to call this a debate.

I have stated my opinion. I have explained the reasoning and the evidence this reasoning is based on.

It seems that you did not read or did not understand the information provided, because it details directly measured empirical evidence which demonstrates the mechanisms at work.

A failure to understand or accept is not a counter argument. It's not even a rebuttal.

This makes this less a debate, and more a person making a statement and the other person saying "go away".

It's a necessarily complex field, but this in no way invalidates the theory.

What else can I say really? You demonstrate a refusal to accept information because it fails to meet your 'standards', coupled with an apparent lack of any credible counter argument or evidence of any kind.

You originally spelled out what kind of person would not debate, yet I am the only one debating here.

Does this not concern you?
Quote | Report to administrator
Don Emery
#140 Don Emery 2014-05-05 08:29
Stryks: I appreciate your comments, but Claudius Denk is not worthy of our time and effort. Some people deny AGW out of simple ignorance, but they do not blog-post back and forth; they simply have an opinion based upon "reporting" and editorial remarks from Fox News, Investor's Business Daily, The Wall Street Journal editorial page, and right-wing talk radio. They only know what they've been told from a source they deem reliable.
In contrast, the one's who blog-post denials repeatedly have constructed a mental framework of rejection. They don't accept scientific findings published in juried periodicals for a variety of unsupportable reasons, such as a conspiracy of scientists -- thousands of them from around the world -- who use their seemingly insulated cabal to hoodwink the rest of us. Just imagine the maturity of thought that could accept such a notion; this person has no idea how science works.
Aside from all the first-rate scientific effort devoted to climate models, atmospheric history from ice cores, studies of solar radiation cycles, effects of volcanoes, etc, etc -- Nobel Prize winning work, no less -- aside from all this, there is the fundamental finding proven over a century ago and never overturned: Some gases trap radiation; we call these greenhouse gases; they are effective at trace amounts, thank goodness else the world would be much colder and possibly not even habitable; that trapped radiation represents trapped heat that must dissipate somewhere, into the air, ocean, and earth's surface. We are releasing massive quantities of one such gas, CO2, in amounts nearly ahistorical, and AGW is the inevitable result. Responsible, skeptical observers -- which category includes the climate scientists themselves -- might dispute consequent details, but no serious person disputes the basic argument, above.
Claudius Denk is not capable of changing his mind, so we should all stop trying to help him understand and start ignoring him.
Thanks
Quote | Report to administrator
Claudius Denk
#141 Claudius Denk 2014-05-05 11:33
Quoting Stryks:
So ... If I'm reading you correctly, the direct measurements shown in the scientific papers I linked to do not qualify as evidence in your eyes?

May I ask, if direct measurement does not count as empirical evidence, what does?

You know, empirical evidence.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

I could quote it out, but meh ... But I take it then that you're done with any kind of counter argument and would prefer just to start calling me names?

It's not your job to explain my 'delusions', I agree. But you should at least explain yours if you wish to call this a debate.

I have stated my opinion. I have explained the reasoning and the evidence this reasoning is based on.

It seems that you did not read or did not understand the information provided, because it details directly measured empirical evidence which demonstrates the mechanisms at work.

A failure to understand or accept is not a counter argument. It's not even a rebuttal.

This makes this less a debate, and more a person making a statement and the other person saying "go away".

It's a necessarily complex field, but this in no way invalidates the theory.

What else can I say really? You demonstrate a refusal to accept information because it fails to meet your 'standards', coupled with an apparent lack of any credible counter argument or evidence of any kind.

You originally spelled out what kind of person would not debate, yet I am the only one debating here.

Does this not concern you?


What you choose to believe is your business. I'm just trying to figure out how you came to believe something that you admit you can't measure/test. Are your methods proprietary? I don't understand why anybody would want to keep something like that secret, but maybe you have your reasons.
Quote | Report to administrator
Claudius Denk
#142 Claudius Denk 2014-05-05 11:45
Quoting Don Emery:
Stryks: I appreciate your comments, but Claudius Denk is not worthy of our time and effort.
I'm sorry for asking questions that make you feel uncomfortable.Quoting Don Emery:
Some people deny AGW out of simple ignorance, but they do not blog-post back and forth; they simply have an opinion based upon "reporting" and editorial remarks from Fox News, Investor's Business Daily, The Wall Street Journal editorial page, and right-wing talk radio. They only know what they've been told from a source they deem reliable.
I'm just trying to figure out how you test something you can't measure. Quoting Don Emery:

In contrast, the one's who blog-post denials repeatedly have constructed a mental framework of rejection. They don't accept scientific findings published in juried periodicals for a variety of unsupportable reasons, such as a conspiracy of scientists -- thousands of them from around the world -- who use their seemingly insulated cabal to hoodwink the rest of us. Just imagine the maturity of thought that could accept such a notion; this person has no idea how science works.
Testing is difficult, confusing, expensive. That you and your associates have found a way to arrive at scientific truth without testing and experiments would be a major breakthrough for mankind. Why would you keep something like this secret? Quoting Don Emery:

Aside from all the first-rate scientific effort devoted to climate models, atmospheric history from ice cores, studies of solar radiation cycles, effects of volcanoes, etc, etc -- Nobel Prize winning work, no less -- aside from all this, there is the fundamental finding proven over a century ago and never overturned: Some gases trap radiation; we call these greenhouse gases; they are effective at trace amounts, thank goodness else the world would be much colder and possibly not even habitable; that trapped radiation represents trapped heat that must dissipate somewhere, into the air, ocean, and earth's surface. We are releasing massive quantities of one such gas, CO2, in amounts nearly ahistorical, and AGW is the inevitable result. Responsible, skeptical observers -- which category includes the climate scientists themselves -- might dispute consequent details, but no serious person disputes the basic argument, above.
Claudius Denk is not capable of changing his mind, so we should all stop trying to help him understand and start ignoring him.
Thanks

The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.
Quote | Report to administrator
Stryks
#143 Stryks 2014-05-05 22:50
Quoting Claudius Denk:
What you choose to believe is your business. I'm just trying to figure out how you came to believe something that you admit you can't measure/test. Are your methods proprietary? I don't understand why anybody would want to keep something like that secret, but maybe you have your reasons.


I have made no admission that we cannot measure or test anything. In fact, I linked to papers showing specifically how it can and has been done. You have made the claim repeatedly, and I have let it go because .. well .. I don't really feel the need to argue pointless minutiae.

And it IS pointless. Even if I had made such an admission, it would not only fly in the face of all the science based upon the measurements my admission would have denied, it would also have no bearing on the credibility or correctness of the science which the admission relates to.

You're busily trying to put words in my mouth which not only mean nothing to me, they also mean nothing to your argument.

The fact is, the science provided is very robust. Nobody has put forward any legitimate science which either disproves it or provides an alternate explanation for the directly measured climate anomalies. There is no third option. Either climate change is correct, or there is some other, yet unknown, cause.

What you have offered to counter this is ... absolutely nothing. Nothing more than vague references to an inability to measure. Measure what I wonder? I can't really say for sure, because you haven't offered any specific counter argument whatsoever.

Instead of feigning confusion as to my beliefs, perhaps you should have the courage to explore your own. Privately if needs be. It isn't my intent to belittle or berate you. But you are expressing a strong opinion which flies in the face of established science and appears to have no foundation beyond "because I say so".

The bulk of your comments have been intended to attack me personally, and I can understand that. It's what people do when they feel like they (or their beliefs) are under attack. I would suggest that you feel so vulnerable to attack because you have taken a position which is pretty much indefensible.

But that's fine. I don't need to prove you wrong. While I have asked you to explain why you think I am wrong, I have never asked you what you actually believe. I didn't ask because it is really beside the point to me. Someone put forward an argument containing information which was demonstrably false. I demonstrated it to be so. The rest since then has been irrelevant.

So take this opportunity. I realize you're going to want the last word, so by all means, take it. Then go have a think about what you believe and why. Not because I'm saying that you're wrong, but because it's possible, just possible, that there might be more to know on this subject than you currently do, and that a small amount of extra understanding may just make you see some things you are currently unable to see.

It's the same philosophy I take, hence the large amount of scientific reading and research I have done, and continue to do.
Quote | Report to administrator
Stryks
#144 Stryks 2014-05-05 22:50
Quoting Claudius Denk:
The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.


That's a good quote. I put it to you that your ability to gain or contribute anything further here is already at the extreme limit.
Quote | Report to administrator
Stryks
#145 Stryks 2014-05-05 23:08
Quoting Don Emery:
Some people deny AGW out of simple ignorance, but they do not blog-post back and forth; they simply have an opinion based upon "reporting" and editorial remarks from Fox News, Investor's Business Daily, The Wall Street Journal editorial page, and right-wing talk radio. They only know what they've been told from a source they deem reliable.


Actually, I'm somewhat heartened to see research such as this.

www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Climate/Adapting/Annual-Survey-of-Australian-Attitudes-to-Climate-Change.aspx

"Every group estimated their own opinion to be the most common among the broader community. Those who denied climate change was happening (7.6% of respondents) strongly overestimated the prevalence of their own opinion (47.6%). Those who thought climate change was natural or human-induced moderately underestimated the prevalence of their own opinion. Every group overestimated the percentage of people who denied climate change was happening."

www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n4/full/nclimate1743.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201304

I realize it is Australian and likely doesn't reflect US attitudes exactly, but it is interesting nonetheless.

It seems that we tend to think that rejection of climate change is more prevalent than it is, regardless of what our own belief is.
Quote | Report to administrator
Claudius Denk
#146 Claudius Denk 2014-05-06 00:16
Quoting Stryks:
Quoting Claudius Denk:
What you choose to believe is your business. I'm just trying to figure out how you came to believe something that you admit you can't measure/test. Are your methods proprietary? I don't understand why anybody would want to keep something like that secret, but maybe you have your reasons.


I have made no admission that we cannot measure or test anything.


Before this conversation had you ever even thought about it?
Quote | Report to administrator
Alder
#147 Alder 2014-05-07 04:15
Referring to
Comment #140 Don Emery 2014-05-05 08:29

Greetings Don Emery:

"Some people deny AGW out of simple ignorance"
Yes of course.
Yet others believe while ignorant, or from acceptance of so-called science based on deliberate omissions and fraud, or because of a misplaced sense of altruism in wanting to save the world, or from the massive government funded propaganda, or they know they will lose their jobs if they speak - that is why so many retired scientists are speaking against.
Suggested homework: Identify the reasons for your own beliefs.

".. greenhouse gases; they are effective at trace amounts"
A statement contradicted by theory and evidence presented on this site and elsewhere. Just for argument- yes this statement is mainstream thinking. Within the mainstream there is no dispute about the declining effect with quantity, the logarithmic rule. The alarmists say that doubling CO2 will increase temperature by 4, 5, 8 .. degrees C (a made-up high figure due to postulated positive feedback), the luke-warmers say it is 1 degree C (or less as negative feedback has been shown). From the evidence of measurements from the past 17 years it is less than 0.1 degree C. From theory the slayers argue it is zero.
Suggested homework: check all the global temperature data sources, there are several, since 1998.

"else the world would be much colder and possibly not even habitable"
The geological record suggests no causation of temperature by CO2 - conversely, there is evidence that temperature leads CO2 by some 800 years.
Suggested homework: Check the records, look at the graph in Al Gore's film carefully, compare what it shows with what he infers.

"Nobel Prize winning work"
The Nobel Peace Prize is a political award. This is not even an argument from authority.

"We are releasing massive quantities of one such gas, CO2, in amounts nearly ahistorical, and AGW is the inevitable result."
Of CO2 in the atmosphere, human activities produce 3%, nature 97%.
Residence time of CO2 is only 5 to 7 years. It is then recycled by natural processes to plants, oceans and soils.
Suggested homework: Look at the figure used by the IPCC, see if you can be the first to find any data to support it.
Quote | Report to administrator
Claudius Denk
#148 Claudius Denk 2014-05-07 13:30
Quoting Stryks:
Quoting Claudius Denk:
What you choose to believe is your business. I'm just trying to figure out how you came to believe something that you admit you can't measure/test. Are your methods proprietary? I don't understand why anybody would want to keep something like that secret, but maybe you have your reasons.

I have made no admission that we cannot measure or test anything.

Nobody is trying to suggest you don't have the right to remain silent.
Quote | Report to administrator
Pat Obar
#149 Pat Obar 2014-05-07 18:40
Quoting Claudius Denk:
Quoting Stryks:
Quoting Claudius Denk:
What you choose to believe is your business. I'm just trying to figure out how you came to believe something that you admit you can't measure/test. Are your methods proprietary? I don't understand why anybody would want to keep something like that secret, but maybe you have your reasons.

I have made no admission that we cannot measure or test anything.

Nobody is trying to suggest you don't have the right to remain silent.


Jim, this one I really like!
CD.Testing is difficult, confusing, expensive. That you and your associates have found a way to arrive at scientific truth without testing and experiments would be a major breakthrough for mankind. Why would you keep something like this secret?
A. That's easy. Such could easily be debunked by any eight grader. Such would only destroy the obvious, religious and political goals! They have no science whatsoever!
It seems that "Stryks" and "Don Emery" have tried to hijack, the article, illustrating,
the differences in techniques Of Michael Mann and John O'Sullivan, in order to promote the pseudo scientific fantasy of CAGW!
BTW:
Have you read www.cimms.ou.edu/~doswell/PVAdisc/PVA.html or: Vorticity Advection and Vertical Motion by Chuck Doswell. It does imply a disagreement in the concept of atmospheric vorticity! I do not understand the paper, my understanding of fluid dynamics is limited to "the higher the hose pressure the further it squirts". Please point out any confusing error in my use of the einglich language.
Quote | Report to administrator
Claudius Denk
#150 Claudius Denk 2014-05-07 21:57
Quoting Pat Obar:

Have you read www.cimms.ou.edu/~doswell/PVAdisc/PVA.html or: Vorticity Advection and Vertical Motion by Chuck Doswell. It does imply a disagreement in the concept of atmospheric vorticity!

Well, yes, moreover the convection model really never amounted to much more than a series of vague implications. And I think that explains why him and his associates have taken such a defensive stance, as evident in the paper you linked to.
Quoting Pat Obar:
I do not understand the paper,
There is nothing to understand. You, surely, know this. Quoting Pat Obar:
my understanding of fluid dynamics is limited to "the higher the hose pressure the further it squirts". Please point out any confusing error in my use of the einglich language.

So, uh, basically Chuck's message here is, "everybody better think like I think or they are just dumb and lazy, and don't even bother asking."

Might Chuck be a bit defensive?
Quote | Report to administrator
Pat Obar
#151 Pat Obar 2014-05-08 00:40
Quoting Claudius Denk:
Quoting Pat Obar:

Have you read www.cimms.ou.edu/~doswell/PVAdisc/PVA.html or: Vorticity Advection and Vertical Motion by Chuck Doswell. It does imply a disagreement in the concept of atmospheric vorticity!


Quoting Pat Obar:
I do not understand the paper, my understanding of fluid dynamics is limited to "the higher the hose pressure the further it squirts". Please point out any confusing error in my use of the einglich language.

So, uh, basically Chuck's message here is, "everybody better think like I think or they are just dumb and lazy, and don't even bother asking."


Oh Jesus Jim,
I clearly stated that I cannot understand this pal reviewed paper! I cannot even find any of your claimed Chuck's message. I only tried to point out that there is disagreement on how or why rain, storms, or tornadoes even exist!
BTW I find your written attempted expressions of violent weather, equally void of any possible understanding by others! I would suggest that your fantasy is only understandable by you.
OTOH, your claims of possible understanding,
of the UN-understandible, is truly fascinating to any experienced engineer, to others that claim they know, not so much!
Quote | Report to administrator
Claudius Denk
#152 Claudius Denk 2014-05-08 01:46
Quoting Pat Obar:

Oh Jesus Jim,
I clearly stated that I cannot understand this pal reviewed paper!
I'm sure the same is true for every other person on this planet, including the author--hell, especially the author.
Quoting Pat Obar:
I cannot even find any of your claimed Chuck's message.
Email. He tripped on the same questions you did.Quoting Pat Obar:

I only tried to point out that there is disagreement on how or why rain, storms, or tornadoes even exist!
And I think its a good thing that you are pointing out that there are alternatives to group think. The "convection" model of storm theory really isn't a model so much as its just a vague, untested notion. You won't find anybody that will defend it(just like CO2 Forcing). You'll note Chuck was, essentially, admonishing them (unnamed TV meteorologists) for not toeing the line. Quoting Pat Obar:

BTW I find your written attempted expressions of violent weather, equally void of any possible understanding by others!
Yet you've no alternative of your own. Right?Quoting Pat Obar:
I would suggest that your fantasy is only understandable by you.
OTOH, your claims of possible understanding,
of the UN-understandible, is truly fascinating to any experienced engineer, to others that claim they know, not so much!

Stay humble.
Quote | Report to administrator
Allen Eltor
#153 Allen Eltor 2014-05-08 05:11
Well, we've established you never measured anything for a living yet.

You're another one of those people who showed up after someone told you a reflective gas envelope of nitrogen and oxygen refrigerated with water,

blocked 30% of the light energy from a fire reaching heat sensors,

and those heat sensors registered 33C hotter,
than when 30% more energy arrived at them

and than when the surface was NOT being washed by frigid nitrogen/oxygen mix, refrigerated by the evaporative phase change of water.

You're here to tell someone that you think you're gonna sit here and make that claim, and not have your face laughed in until you decide to simply pretend

removing 30% of the energy from surface sensors
made the temperature of every sensor on the planet show an average RISE in temperature.

LoL. I'm just gonna leave you to be laughed at in slow motion by Denk.

I can't believe you showed up here making that claim, and making the claim it's actually been proven.

Heres a hint. The atmosphere's temperature is calculated using a formula called the IDEAL GAS LAW.

Not the UNREAL GAS LAW or the GREEN HOUSE GAS LAW,

the IDEAL GAS LAW.

You're in way over you're head, kid.

I'm not gonna come over here and humiliate you just out of boredom but it's my STRONG suggestion to you,


that you figure out how a man convinced you the very gases - infrared interactive gases - responsible for raising the temperature of the earth's surface temperatures,

can also be specifically responsible for 22% of that total 30% heat reflected away from the surface of the earth.

You go get the text book that showed you how to remove 22% of incoming light energy yet make a sensor hotter.

Hotter than if 22% more total energy reached the sensor.

Go get that book, my degree's in semiconductor Electronic Engineering in Radiation Communications.

Whenever one of those Mars rovers goes beep, or a solar system probe sends back some pictures, that's my field that specializes in communication through radiation of electromagnetic energy though space, the atmosphere, whatever industrial compounds I need to pass it through to make that happen.

- go get the book, and come here and show me where it says "And here we remove 20% of incoming energy from the light, causing heat sensors to register more energy arriving, than when more energy was arriving."

We'll all wait. You either find it or find someone who can come here and explain that for you so we all nod and say we believe it happened one time.


[quote name="Stryks"]Part 2 of 2


I have a belief based on reason, logic, and evidence. This evidence is copious, thoroughly tested, and has an extremely high probability of accuracy. It is the best evidence that we have available (as you appear to agree, give your glowing comments on scientists).


In the case of climate change, there is nothing which even comes close to explaining the empirical measurements without the interaction of CO2.
Quote | Report to administrator
Michael Webster
#154 Michael Webster 2014-05-19 00:57
Pathetic and deceitful given that you can't show any evidence for your false assertion that Ball has won the case.
Quote | Report to administrator
jsullivan
#155 jsullivan 2014-05-19 05:39
Michael, Only the millions of dollars thrown by Mann's backers to cynically delays Ball's inevitable official victory gives you any crumb of comfort. Mann is now being openly condemned as a liar and fraudster for hiding his rigged r2 recession data. After three years of expensive legal wrangling, despite hiring the best libel lawyer in Canada the Penn State climate fraudster has only proved his SLAPP lawsuit was a cynical (but failed) attempt to silence debate on his fraudulent hockey stick graph. I've said it all along - Mann is a criminal and everyone can see that is why he hides his faked numbers.
Quote | Report to administrator
Pat Obar
#156 Pat Obar 2014-05-19 06:49
[quote name="jsullivan"]Michael, . to silence debate on his fraudulent hockey stick graph. I've said it all along - Mann is a criminal. OK Mann is criminal And Johh O'Sullivan is God! Now what is the cavorting child like critters to do in the area between the criminal and God? WE can only hope!
Quote | Report to administrator
Pat Obar
#157 Pat Obar 2014-05-19 07:21
Quoting Allen Eltor:
Well, we've established you never measured anything for a living yet.

You're another one of those people who showed up after someone told you a reflective gas envelope of nitrogen and oxygen refrigerated with water,



[quote name="Stryks"]Part 2 of 2


I have a belief based on reason, logic, and evidence. This evidence is copious, thoroughly tested, and has an extremely high probability of accuracy. It is the best evidence that we have available (as you appear to agree, give your glowing comments on scientists).


In the case of climate change, there is nothing which even comes close to explaining the empirical measurements without the interaction of CO2.

What complete Bullshit, your fantasy includes CO2. Reality needs none of your stupid CO2 nonsence!
Quote | Report to administrator
Michael Webster
#158 Michael Webster 2014-05-19 09:51
Quoting jsullivan:
Michael, Only the millions of dollars thrown by Mann's backers to cynically delays Ball's inevitable official victory gives you any crumb of comfort. Mann is now being openly condemned as a liar and fraudster for hiding his rigged r2 recession data. After three years of expensive legal wrangling, despite hiring the best libel lawyer in Canada the Penn State climate fraudster has only proved his SLAPP lawsuit was a cynical (but failed) attempt to silence debate on his fraudulent hockey stick graph. I've said it all along - Mann is a criminal and everyone can see that is why he hides his faked numbers.


So, you're reporting that Mann has lost the case, but he hasn't and now you're making excuses for your lies? Deniers continually bring up the vexatious court cases they've taken against AGW scientists and others, and harp on about how the truth is about to be revealed. And to date, they've lost every one of their court cases. Being fraudulent and untruthful is all very well for the right wing blogosphere, but it appears it doesn't work out well in the court room.

Mann's hockey stick research has been confirmed so many times over by other people's research using different proxies. Flogging the dead horse of a supposed "hockey stick" hoax, is just a sign of how incapable of learning you deniers are. The hockey stick is verified, and no amount of flat earther denial will change that fact.
Quote | Report to administrator
Michael Webster
#159 Michael Webster 2014-05-19 09:54
What complete Bullshit, your fantasy includes CO2. Reality needs none of your stupid CO2 nonsence!

So, you're denying CO2 these days? Or are you just denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
Quote | Report to administrator
Claudius Denk
#160 Claudius Denk 2014-05-19 10:46
Quoting Michael Webster:
Are you just denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?


Michael,
Do you deny that the term "greenhouse gas" is vague, untestable pseudoscience?

Answer the question you evasive twit.
Quote | Report to administrator
Michael Webster
#161 Michael Webster 2014-05-19 22:05
Quoting Claudius Denk:

Michael,
Do you deny that the term "greenhouse gas" is vague, untestable pseudoscience?

Answer the question you evasive twit.


Of course I deny it, and so would Lindzen, and any of the other 2 or 3 actually qualified people on the denier side of the equation. A greenhouse gas is one that can absorb IR. Some gases like Argon are transparent to IR, but the greenhouse gases, largely because of their geometry and electrical characteristics do absorb IR.

That's physics, not the flat earth idiocy of denial.
Quote | Report to administrator
jsullivan
#162 jsullivan 2014-05-20 06:21
Michael, in case you hadn't noticed, it was Mann who sued Ball, not the other way round. Mann is using the courts to silence debate. But he's failed. I am an interested party in the Mann-v-Ball lawsuit having signed an indemnity to Ball. As such, I'm better placed than a non-party to determine if I've won or not.
Contrary to your ill-informed opinion, Mann's data remains hidden and not verified. Moreover, he declines to permit it to be examined in open court. Instead he claims proprietary rights! So much for a "climate crisis" when profits come before "saving the planet"
Quote | Report to administrator
jsullivan
#163 jsullivan 2014-05-20 06:26
Climate scientists are not trained in the "hard" sciences so cannot know more about how CO2 operates than experts in Chemistry with eminent careers. Carbon Dioxide does not "trap" heat - it radiates more efficiently than almost all other atmospheric gases. So good is CO2 at emitting heat that it has been used in industry for a century as a COOLANT.
Quote | Report to administrator
Michael Webster
#164 Michael Webster 2014-05-20 07:02
Just what data is it that Mann has hidden. If you let me know, perhaps I can find it for you. If you're only interested in a fishing expedition through his emails, you'll quite rightly be denied.
Quote | Report to administrator
Michael Webster
#165 Michael Webster 2014-05-20 07:10
Mann has a phd in physics, amongst many other "hard science" qualifications. Climate scientists in general have qualifications in physics or geophysics. I don't know what you think would qualify as "hard science", but to most people physics would be the very definition of it.

I take it you're talking about CO2 in it's liquid form as a coolant? Or using compression on it?

Of course it emits a lot of energy - as much as it absorbs. That's what greenhouse gases do, absorb energy then re-emit it. IR leaving the earth's surface on its way to space is absorbed by CO2, which then re-emits that energy, about half of it back towards the ground.
Quote | Report to administrator
Sunsettommy
#166 Sunsettommy 2014-05-20 09:05
Quoting Michael Webster:
Mann has a phd in physics, amongst many other "hard science" qualifications. Climate scientists in general have qualifications in physics or geophysics. I don't know what you think would qualify as "hard science", but to most people physics would be the very definition of it.

I take it you're talking about CO2 in it's liquid form as a coolant? Or using compression on it?

Of course it emits a lot of energy - as much as it absorbs. That's what greenhouse gases do, absorb energy then re-emit it. IR leaving the earth's surface on its way to space is absorbed by CO2, which then re-emits that energy, about half of it back towards the ground.


The total amount of IR absorption by CO2 is negligible and in three narrow bands.The main TERRESTRIAL radiation band is OUTSIDE the main CO2 band,meaning that CO2 absorbs little of the outgoing IR.

www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-188-post-3342.html#pid3342
Quote | Report to administrator
Sunsettommy
#167 Sunsettommy 2014-05-20 09:06
Here is another simple chart showing how weak CO2 is in absorbing IR.

www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-188-post-3757.html#pid3757
Quote | Report to administrator
Claudius Denk
#168 Claudius Denk 2014-05-20 10:34
Quoting Michael Webster:
Quoting Claudius Denk:

Michael,
Do you deny that the term "greenhouse gas" is vague, untestable pseudoscience?

Answer the question you evasive twit.


Of course I deny it,

Do you also deny that actual greenhouses work on completely different principles than IR absorption?
Do you deny that CO2 forcing has never been measured?
Do you deny that something that cannot be measurede cannot be tested?
Quoting Michael Webster:
and so would Lindzen,
Do you deny that arguments based on authority are invalid in science?Quoting Michael Webster:
and any of the other 2 or 3 actually qualified people on the denier side of the equation.
Do you deny that your responses demonstrate your scientific incompetence?Quoting Michael Webster:
A greenhouse gas is one that can absorb IR.
Do you deny that all gasses absorb/emit different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation and all have the abiltiy to convert that into kinetic energy (heat)?Quoting Michael Webster:
Some gases like Argon are transparent to IR, but the greenhouse gases, largely because of their geometry and electrical characteristics do absorb IR.
Do you deny that you have no quantitative evience/proof that CO2 has more of a thermal impact than any other gas?Quoting Michael Webster:


That's physics, not the flat earth idiocy of denial.

Have you always been a science denier?
Quote | Report to administrator
Claudius Denk
#169 Claudius Denk 2014-05-20 10:43
Quoting Michael Webster:
Mann has a phd in physics,
Well, then, he has no excuse, does he?Quoting Michael Webster:
amongst many other "hard science" qualifications.
I wouldn't have guessed.Quoting Michael Webster:
Climate scientists in general have qualifications in physics or geophysics. I don't know what you think would qualify as "hard science", but to most people physics would be the very definition of it.
Did you know that CO2 forcing has never been measured?
Did you know it is impossible to experimentally test something you can't measure? Did you know that calling something science that has never been measured is fraud?Quoting Michael Webster:


I take it you're talking about CO2 in it's liquid form as a coolant? Or using compression on it?

Of course it emits a lot of energy - as much as it absorbs. That's what greenhouse gases do,
Did you know that with this statment you just admitted that all gasses are greenhouse gasses?Quoting Michael Webster:
absorb energy then re-emit it. IR leaving the earth's surface on its way to space is absorbed by CO2, which then re-emits that energy, about half of it back towards the ground.
Did you know that you just demonstrated that global warming is a cult and not a science?
Quote | Report to administrator
Pat Obar
#170 Pat Obar 2014-05-20 18:55
Quoting Michael Webster:

Of course it emits a lot of energy - as much as it absorbs. That's what greenhouse gases do, absorb energy then re-emit it. IR leaving the earth's surface on its way to space is absorbed by CO2, which then re-emits that energy, about half of it back towards the ground.


Please explain how any of Maxwell's equations of electromagnetic radiation allow any such radiation in a direction of higher field strength at any frequency?
Quote | Report to administrator
jsullivan
#171 jsullivan 2014-05-21 08:15
Michael Mann is not complying with discovery in the Mann-v-Ball case. I know because I'm a party. Mann refuses to disclose his r2 regression numbers for the hockey stick. You won't find them online because Mann admits he will not disclose them. Don't you actually check your facts?
Indeed, Mann's PhD is also dubious. It was rushed through in controversial circumstances and his supervisor was none other than Barry Saltzman, a prominent alarmist activist. Whereupon as soon as Mann acquired his PhD he was appointed Lead Author by the IPCC and concocted his tree ring proxy graph with no prior experience in the field.
Quote | Report to administrator
Michael Webster
#172 Michael Webster 2014-05-21 10:42
Quoting Pat Obar:


Please explain how any of Maxwell's equations of electromagnetic radiation allow any such radiation in a direction of higher field strength at any frequency?


Are you suggesting that Maxwell's equations somehow ban the absorption of radiation by matter? If so, it's going to be a big surprise to all life on earth.
Quote | Report to administrator
Michael Webster
#173 Michael Webster 2014-05-21 10:48
It seems that others disagree with your mischaracterisation of the court case against Ball:

Quote:
The review of Tim Ball’s new book by Hans Schreuder and John O’Sullivan makes preposterous statements concerning Dr. Michael Mann’s lawsuit in the British Columbia Supreme Court against Tim Ball and other defendants. The Mann lawsuit is currently in the discovery phase, with further examinations for discovery (depositions) of the defendants to be scheduled shortly, following which I will either set the action for trial by jury in the usual manner, or bring a summary trial application on behalf of Dr. Mann for damages and injunctive relief. Dr. Ball has not set the matter for trial and there is no motion by Ball currently before the Court. The allegation by Schreuder and O’Sullivan that Dr. Mann has refused to show his metadata and calculations in open court is not true. Their assertion that Dr. Mann faces possible bankruptcy is nonsense. Dr. Mann’s lawsuit against Dr. Ball and other defendants is proceeding through the normal stages prescribed by the BC Supreme Court Civil Rules and Dr. Mann looks forward to judicial vindication at the conclusion of this process. February 22, 2014 Roger D. McConchie Barrister and Solicitor Legal Counsel to Dr. Michael Mann
Quote | Report to administrator
Claudius Denk
#174 Claudius Denk 2014-05-21 15:03
Quoting Michael Webster:
It seems that others disagree with your mischaracterisation of the court case against Ball:

Quote:
The review of Tim Ball’s new book by Hans Schreuder and John O’Sullivan makes preposterous statements concerning Dr. Michael Mann’s lawsuit in the British Columbia Supreme Court against Tim Ball and other defendants. The Mann lawsuit is currently in the discovery phase, with further examinations for discovery (depositions) of the defendants to be scheduled shortly, following which I will either set the action for trial by jury in the usual manner, or bring a summary trial application on behalf of Dr. Mann for damages and injunctive relief. Dr. Ball has not set the matter for trial and there is no motion by Ball currently before the Court. The allegation by Schreuder and O’Sullivan that Dr. Mann has refused to show his metadata and calculations in open court is not true. Their assertion that Dr. Mann faces possible bankruptcy is nonsense. Dr. Mann’s lawsuit against Dr. Ball and other defendants is proceeding through the normal stages prescribed by the BC Supreme Court Civil Rules and Dr. Mann looks forward to judicial vindication at the conclusion of this process. February 22, 2014 Roger D. McConchie Barrister and Solicitor Legal Counsel to Dr. Michael Mann
Michael, you demonstrate that very low reading and comprehension skill that is so universal amongst the believers of climate hysteria. Note that McConchie did not direct quote Schreuder and O'Sullivan. Why do you think that is? Instead of coming here and whining about something you don't understand why don't you contact McConchie and Mann and ask them directly for the alleged metadata and calculations.

This isn't a hand holding service here. If you can't follow a complex discussion then maybe you should recuse yourself from the conversation. There are many other forums on the WWW that are happy to entertain your hand-wringing.
Quote | Report to administrator
Michael Webster
#175 Michael Webster 2014-05-21 17:50
Quoting Claudius Denk:

Michael, you demonstrate that very low reading and comprehension skill that is so universal amongst the believers of climate hysteria. Note that McConchie did not direct quote Schreuder and O'Sullivan. Why do you think that is? Instead of coming here and whining about something you don't understand why don't you contact McConchie and Mann and ask them directly for the alleged metadata and calculations.

This isn't a hand holding service here. If you can't follow a complex discussion then maybe you should recuse yourself from the conversation. There are many other forums on the WWW that are happy to entertain your hand-wringing.


So, I come here because there is a claim in the article that the Mann v Ball case has turned against Mann, and Mann is facing bankruptcy. Of course there is no evidence for that contention.

Then we get onto the contention that Mann is refusing to release his data in discovery. Again, a simple check shows that it's not so.

Finally, there are the numerous ludicrous babblings of Claudius Denk, including this one:

Quoting Claudius Denk:
Do you deny that you have no quantitative evience/proof that CO2 has more of a thermal impact than any other gas?


Well, I have no proof you exist, but accepting that you do as a working hypothesis, perhaps your scientific knowledge hasn't caught up the the 19th century yet? Still holding to that phlogistan theory are you?

In the meantime, if you'll shift your scientific reading forward to after the 1850s, you might come across this guy who measured the relevant properties of various gases - John Tyndall:
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Tyndall/

Perhaps you were talking about some "other" CO2?

Let me know when you need some other up to date scientific knowledge - I think some of Darwin's books might be a bit of a surprise to you.
Quote | Report to administrator
Claudius Denk
#176 Claudius Denk 2014-05-21 19:43
Quoting Michael Webster:
Quoting Claudius Denk:

Michael, you demonstrate that very low reading and comprehension skill that is so universal amongst the believers of climate hysteria. Note that McConchie did not direct quote Schreuder and O'Sullivan. Why do you think that is?
No response.Quoting Michael Webster:
Instead of coming here and whining about something you don't understand why don't you contact McConchie and Mann and ask them directly for the alleged metadata and calculations.

This isn't a hand holding service here. If you can't follow a complex discussion then maybe you should recuse yourself from the conversation. There are many other forums on the WWW that are happy to entertain your hand-wringing.


So, I come here because there is a claim in the article that the Mann v Ball case has turned against Mann, and Mann is facing bankruptcy. Of course there is no evidence for that contention.
You are expecting us/me to dispute your imagination?Quoting Michael Webster:


Then we get onto the contention that Mann is refusing to release his data in discovery. Again, a simple check shows that it's not so.
Did Mann release this data to you in secret?Quoting Michael Webster:


Finally, there are the numerous ludicrous babblings of Claudius Denk, including this one:

Quoting Claudius Denk:
Do you deny that you have no quantitative evience/proof that CO2 has more of a thermal impact than any other gas?


Well, I have no proof you exist, but accepting that you do as a working hypothesis, perhaps your scientific knowledge hasn't caught up the the 19th century yet? Still holding to that phlogistan theory are you?

In the meantime, if you'll shift your scientific reading forward to after the 1850s, you might come across this guy who measured the relevant properties of various gases - John Tyndall:
Quoting Michael Webster:
BTW, all radiation is "heat" radiation. Humans, being carbon-based lifeforms with a high water content, have a natural bias to see/view infrared as heat radiation. Contrary to what you global warming weenies choose to assume, the atmosphere carries no such bias.

Where is your argument? Keep in mind the internet doesn't provide us access to your imagination.

This isn't a hand holding service. It's not our responsibility to make your argument for you.Quoting Michael Webster:


Perhaps you were talking about some "other" CO2?
Do you deny that Tyndall never measured CO2 Forcing?Quoting Michael Webster:


Let me know when you need some other up to date scientific knowledge - I think some of Darwin's books might be a bit of a surprise to you.
LOL. You should have done some research before you took this line of attack. Go to Google Groups and do a search under my name. (It just so happens I'm an expert on evolutionary theory.)

Do you deny that you have no quantitative evience/proof that CO2 has more of a thermal impact than any other gas? Answer the question you evasive twit.
Quote | Report to administrator
Pat Obar
#177 Pat Obar 2014-05-21 20:43
Quoting Michael Webster:
Quoting Pat Obar:
Please explain how any of Maxwell's equations of electromagnetic radiation allow any such radiation in a direction of higher field strength at any frequency?


Are you suggesting that Maxwell's equations somehow ban the absorption of radiation by matter? If so, it's going to be a big surprise to all life on earth.


Not at all. You Michael, state: "That's what greenhouse gases do, absorb energy then re-emit it. IR leaving the earth's surface on its way to space is absorbed by CO2, which then re-emits that energy, about half of it back towards the ground."
The same 30 year old alarmist desecration of the science of electromagnetic radiation, by Oppenheimer, Hansen, and Mann. Your "half back toward the ground" would be in a direction of a higher field strength, at every frequency!
I claimed nothing of absorption, only that Maxwell's equations allow no such emission of electromagnetic energy. Indeed, none such has ever been observed, detected, or measured in any way! All a contrived fantasy for profit.
You "Michael Webster", knowingly and deliberately perpetuate the fraud!
Quote | Report to administrator
Pat Obar
#178 Pat Obar 2014-05-21 23:01
Quoting Michael Webster:
Quoting Claudius Denk:
This isn't a hand holding service here. If you can't follow a complex discussion then maybe you should recuse yourself from the conversation. There are many other forums on the WWW that are happy to entertain your hand-wringing.


Finally, there are the numerous ludicrous babblings of Claudius Denk, including this one:
Quoting Claudius Denk:
Do you deny that you have no quantitative evience/proof that CO2 has more of a thermal impact than any other gas?

Well, I have no proof you exist, but accepting that you do as a working hypothesis, perhaps your scientific knowledge hasn't caught up the the 19th century yet? Still holding to that phlogistan theory are you?
In the meantime, if you'll shift your scientific reading forward to after the 1850s, you might come across this guy who measured the relevant properties of various gases - John Tyndall: earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Tyndall/


Very good! John Tyndall, perhaps the best chemists of the time, (prior to any understanding of electromagnetic radiation),
measured absorption of thermal radiation at particular wavelengths by a gas at a lower temperature from the emitter, that same Tyndall demonstrated the spontaneous emission at the same wavelenths to an absorber at a lower temperature. (known as emission lines).
Jimmy Maxwell and John Poynting turned these observations, and measurement into some precice mathematical formulation. Maxwell's quarternions and Poyntings vector arithmetic.
Please note that all that was done way prior to Marconi's amplitude modulation of lumped constant electromagnetic radiation.
Why is it that you "Michael Webster" deny all known science, in favor of AGW FRAUD?
Quote | Report to administrator
Claudius Denk
#179 Claudius Denk 2014-05-22 01:04
Quoting Pat Obar:

Why is it that you "Michael Webster" deny all known science, in favor of AGW FRAUD?


Here's an interesting statistic. The percentage of climate scientists that believe in global warming and the percentage of scientist that are opposed to debate is exactly the same, 97%.

What are the odds on that?
Quote | Report to administrator
Michael Webster
#180 Michael Webster 2014-05-22 01:18
Quoting Pat Obar:



Not at all. You Michael, state: "That's what greenhouse gases do, absorb energy then re-emit it. IR leaving the earth's surface on its way to space is absorbed by CO2, which then re-emits that energy, about half of it back towards the ground."
The same 30 year old alarmist desecration of the science of electromagnetic radiation, by Oppenheimer, Hansen, and Mann. Your "half back toward the ground" would be in a direction of a higher field strength, at every frequency!
I claimed nothing of absorption, only that Maxwell's equations allow no such emission of electromagnetic energy. Indeed, none such has ever been observed, detected, or measured in any way! All a contrived fantasy for profit.
You "Michael Webster", knowingly and deliberately perpetuate the fraud!


So, either you're suggesting that gases only absorb radiation - with no emission - which is ludicrous, or you're saying that for some reason molecules can only emit their energy in a direction away from the Earth.

Either way, you're talking nonsense.
Quote | Report to administrator
Michael Webster
#181 Michael Webster 2014-05-22 01:34
Quoting Claudius Denk:
LOL. You should have done some research before you took this line of attack. Go to Google Groups and do a search under my name. (It just so happens I'm an expert on evolutionary theory.)

Do you deny that you have no quantitative evience/proof that CO2 has more of a thermal impact than any other gas? Answer the question you evasive twit.


I somehow doubt very much that you're an expert in anything, including evolutionary theory. Tyndal's experiments proved that CO2 had a particular effect on heat. The atmosphere is pretty much transparent to shorter wavelengths, which is why most of the energy from the sun can pass through the atmosphere, and about half is reflected back to space. Radiation from the Earth's surface however, is very similar to the radiation from a black body of the same temperature, and a whole lot of that energy can be absorbed and re-emitted by CO2 in the atmosphere.

I might take your fantastic claim that you're some kind of expert in evolutionary theory more seriously if you showed some ability to get your head around simple physics.
Quote | Report to administrator
Michael Webster
#182 Michael Webster 2014-05-22 01:36
Quoting Claudius Denk:
Quoting Pat Obar:

Why is it that you "Michael Webster" deny all known science, in favor of AGW FRAUD?


Here's an interesting statistic. The percentage of climate scientists that believe in global warming and the percentage of scientist that are opposed to debate is exactly the same, 97%.

What are the odds on that?


Who wants to debate things with people who can't even understand the basics. Proper debate occurs amongst scientists - the real skeptics here - not between scientists and the pathologically ignorant.
Quote | Report to administrator
Pat Obar
#183 Pat Obar 2014-05-22 01:55
Quoting Claudius Denk:
Quoting Pat Obar:

Why is it that you "Michael Webster" deny all known science, in favor of AGW FRAUD?


Here's an interesting statistic. The percentage of climate scientists that believe in global warming and the percentage of scientist that are opposed to debate is exactly the same, 97%.

What are the odds on that?


Jim, Why would you expect anything different?
Quote | Report to administrator
Pat Obar
#184 Pat Obar 2014-05-22 02:23
Quoting Michael Webster:
Quoting Pat Obar:



Not at all. You Michael, state: "That's what greenhouse gases do, absorb energy then re-emit it. IR leaving the earth's surface on its way to space is absorbed by CO2, which then re-emits that energy, about half of it back towards the ground."
The same 30 year old alarmist desecration of the science of electromagnetic radiation, by Oppenheimer, Hansen, and Mann. Your "half back toward the ground" would be in a direction of a higher field strength, at every frequency!
I claimed nothing of absorption, only that Maxwell's equations allow no such emission of electromagnetic energy. Indeed, none such has ever been observed, detected, or measured in any way! All a contrived fantasy for profit.
You "Michael Webster", knowingly and deliberately perpetuate the fraud!


So, either you're suggesting that gases only absorb radiation - with no emission - which is ludicrous, or you're saying that for some reason molecules can only emit their energy in a direction away from the Earth.


The equations of thermal electromagnetic radiation allow only energy transfer in a direction toward a lower field strength, at each frequency! The higher "temperature" surface has a higher field strength, at every frequency! No emission in the direction of a higher temperature is possible.

Indeed, you always claim nonsense. You "Michael Webster", knowingly and deliberately perpetuate the fraud!
Quote | Report to administrator
Michael Webster
#185 Michael Webster 2014-05-22 02:31
Quoting Pat Obar:


The equations of thermal electromagnetic radiation allow only energy transfer in a direction toward a lower field strength, at each frequency! The higher "temperature" surface has a higher field strength, at every frequency! No emission in the direction of a higher temperature is possible.

Indeed, you always claim nonsense. You "Michael Webster", knowingly and deliberately perpetuate the fraud!


Well, that's an interesting idea. So every hotter body sees every cooler body as though they were at absolute 0 temperature?

You're talking about net energy you fool.
Quote | Report to administrator
Claudius Denk
#186 Claudius Denk 2014-05-22 04:31
Quoting Michael Webster:

The atmosphere is pretty much transparent to shorter wavelengths,


You are one of those simpletons who fell for the con job that infra red is the only wavelength that has thermal significance. All you frauds have is vague, wishy-washy assertions and pretensiousness.
Quote | Report to administrator
Michael Webster
#187 Michael Webster 2014-05-22 04:50
Quoting Claudius Denk:


You are one of those simpletons who fell for the con job that infra red is the only wavelength that has thermal significance. All you frauds have is vague, wishy-washy assertions and pretensiousness.


Well there are gases that absorb a whole lot of light at higher wavelengths - Chlorine gas would be one of them - you can even see it. But it turns out we don't have sufficient chlorine in the atmosphere to have much effect.

So, so far, we've got you still denying the evidence that Tyndall produced over 150 years ago for CO2's role as a greenhouse gas, and then putting up strawman arguments.

You wouldn't be an AGW denier would you, because lack of consistency, intellectual dishonesty, and failure at basic logic are characteristic of that particular group.
Quote | Report to administrator
Claudius Denk
#188 Claudius Denk 2014-05-22 09:02
Quoting Michael Webster:
Quoting Claudius Denk:
You are one of those simpletons who fell for the con job that infra red is the only wavelength that has thermal significance. All you frauds have is vague, wishy-washy assertions and pretensiousness.

Well there are gases that absorb a whole lot of light at higher wavelengths - Chlorine gas would be one of them - you can even see it. But it turns out we don't have sufficient chlorine in the atmosphere to have much effect.

So, so far, we've got you still denying the evidence that Tyndall produced over 150 years ago for CO2's role as a greenhouse gas, and then putting up strawman arguments.

You wouldn't be an AGW denier would you, because lack of consistency, intellectual dishonesty, and failure at basic logic are characteristic of that particular group.

The ability of AGW believers to see things that appear to not exist is remarkable. But what is most amazing of all is how you are able to achieve this without defining terms, without delineating units, without measurement, and without any experimentation or empirical examination of any kind.

It's just amazing the powers of perception that emerge when one chooses to believe.
Quote | Report to administrator
Pat Obar
#189 Pat Obar 2014-05-22 17:32
Quoting Michael Webster:
Quoting Pat Obar:
The equations of thermal electromagnetic radiation allow only energy transfer in a direction toward a lower field strength, at each frequency! The higher "temperature" surface has a higher field strength, at every frequency! No emission in the direction of a higher temperature is possible.

Indeed, you always claim nonsense. You "Michael Webster", knowingly and deliberately perpetuate the fraud!


Well, that's an interesting idea. So every hotter body sees every cooler body as though they were at absolute 0 temperature? You're talking about net energy you fool.


Well, that's an interesting projection upon another. "Michael Webster" attributes to me, the exact fraud that he and his alarmists associates have been promoting for 30 years.

I only correctly stated, "The equations of thermal electromagnetic radiation allow only energy transfer in a direction toward a lower field strength, at each frequency!", in order to demolish the alarmist fraud that a lower temperature atmosphere can transfer energy by "any" means to a higher temperature surface, as indicated by your fradulent Trenberth cartoon.

Now, I have established that a lower temperature atmosphere can in no way transfer energy to, or raise the temperature of, the surface! Please restate your claim, in scientific terms, that "increasing atmospheric CO2 may possibly be the cause of increasing surface temperature"?
You "Michael Webster", are very bad at promoting the faith, but only knowingly and deliberately perpetuate the fraud! Perhaps you can get a job flipping burgers somewhere! :-)
Quote | Report to administrator
Jim Spriggs
#190 Jim Spriggs 2014-06-09 15:17
It's been a while since this article went up. I wonder when it will be when his acolytes finally come to the realization that John O'Sullivan is little more than a liar and a fraud, and quietly slink away. Or will they simply swirl the bowl along with him, glad-hands and huzzahs all the way down. Time will tell.
Quote | Report to administrator
john
#191 john 2014-06-09 16:50
Quoting Jim Spriggs:
It's been a while since this article went up. I wonder when it will be when his acolytes finally come to the realization that John O'Sullivan is little more than a liar and a fraud, and quietly slink away....


Maybe John O'Sullivan IS little more than a liar and a fraud & maybe Mr Mann IS the savior of the human race, so lets see them both in the same court with all the evedence & test those theorys, ASAP
Quote | Report to administrator
Michael Webster
#192 Michael Webster 2014-06-10 02:30
Quoting Pat Obar:
Well, that's an interesting projection upon another. "Michael Webster" attributes to me, the exact fraud that he and his alarmists associates have been promoting for 30 years.

I only correctly. The equations of thermal electromagnetic radiation allow only energy transfer in a direction toward a lower field strength, at each frequency! The higher "temperature" surface has a higher field strength, at every frequency! No emission in the direction of a higher temperature is possible.

Indeed, you always claim nonsense. You "Michael Webster", knowingly and deliberately perpetuate the fraud!


It's a common feature of debating with AGW deniers that they cite scientific principles that they know nothing about. In this case you stating that energy only goes in certain directions is absolutely ludicrous. The idea that energy can't go from the atmosphere to the ground because the ground is warmer is equivalent to claiming that I'll become invisible as soon as I step into the shadow of a tree, because it's brighter outside the shadow.

I don't know why I even bother answering someone who tries to defend such an obviously ludicrous statement. I thought Claudius was the most florridly delusional here, but it appears I'm mistaken.

For anyone still in possession of a functioning neuron or two, net energy flow is from hotter to cooler bodies, but energy flows in both directions. More from the hotter to the cooler, simply because the hotter body is hotter - and therefore radiates more.
Quote | Report to administrator
jsullivan
#193 jsullivan 2014-06-10 05:21
"It's a common feature of debating with AGW deniers that they cite scientific principles that they know nothing about."

PSI's science is robust unlike fake climate 'science.' Vice Chair, Pierre Latour, is a leading expert in industry in the field of thermodynamics. Unlike academics, PSI's hundreds of applied scientists and engineers perform science that works, unlike failed academics in ivory towers spouting fanciful 'theories.'
Also, I have called both Mann and his hot shot libel lawyer liars. I still haven't received their 'lawsuit' - I won't hold my breath, truth is an absolute defense in law.
Quote | Report to administrator
Michael Webster
#194 Michael Webster 2014-06-10 08:30
Quoting jsullivan:

PSI's science is robust unlike fake climate 'science.' Vice Chair, Pierre Latour, is a leading expert in industry in the field of thermodynamics. Unlike academics, PSI's hundreds of applied scientists and engineers perform science that works, unlike failed academics in ivory towers spouting fanciful 'theories.'
Also, I have called both Mann and his hot shot libel lawyer liars. I still haven't received their 'lawsuit' - I won't hold my breath, truth is an absolute defense in law.


I was pointing out that Pat Obar had made a demonstrably false and ludicrous claim, citing Maxwell's equations to back himself up. If Pierre Latour was also to make such a ridiculous claim, he would also be proven to be scientifically illiterate, and logically incompetent. He hasn't yet made such a claim, so I have no comment on his competency to comment.

The Ivory tower comment gives us a bit of insight into the motivations for your attacks though. Is it just jealousy that makes you angry that the people who have actually devoted their lives to studying the science don't agree with you? It certainly appears like it when you pull out the old "ivory towers" image. Ridiculing a world that you can only enter through years of hard work, in order to bolster your own uninformed opinion is just the most obnoxious of the AGW deniers argument methods.

As to Mann's lawyers, they confirm that your initial article claiming that there was some huge setback for Mann in the court case, is a falsehood.
Quote | Report to administrator
jsullivan
#195 jsullivan 2014-06-10 08:46
Mr Webster, as a former teacher and lecturer I reluctantly agree with George Bernard Shaw who famously stated that those who can do something well(e.g. science) do so for a living, while those who can't make a living by teaching. Thus, it is not in academia but in the applied sciences and engineering where the brightest and best go, not your beloved ivory towers populated by politicized third-raters.
As for Mann's lawyer, Roger McConchie, I posted a rebuttal to his lying claims against me. Mann's case against Dr Ball is dead in the water. It is why Dr Ball has recently become more outspoken against Mann's fraudulent 'science.'
Quote | Report to administrator
Michael Webster
#196 Michael Webster 2014-06-10 10:04
Now you're just displaying your ignorance - even of the guy you've named your blog in honour of - Isaac Newton.

The fact that they weren't the brightest, or weren't in academia would come as a great surprise to Einstein, Feynman, Newton, Watson and Crick, Turing, Von Neumann, and the whole long list of academics who have made all the most important and brilliant discoveries in the world of science. The list of fundamental achievements by your so called "applied scientists" and engineers is pitiful in comparison. Indeed, some of the greatest engineering has been done by academics and scientists, as on the Manhatten project.

If your legal view points are as out of whack with all reality as your knowledge of history and science, Tim Ball will be in all sorts of strife.
Quote | Report to administrator
jsullivan
#197 jsullivan 2014-06-10 10:30
Mr Webster, it is your pompous & pitiful handwaving that is exposed as ignorant and biased, as per the latest PSI news story. In it we see a world-renowned geologist exposing your beloved junk climate scientists for covering up inconvenient truth: www.principia-scientific.org/giant-of-geology-glaciology-christian-schluechter-throws-co2-climate-science-into-disarray.html
Quote | Report to administrator
Claudius Denk
#198 Claudius Denk 2014-06-10 11:38
Quoting Michael Webster:
It's a common feature of debating with AGW deniers that they cite scientific principles that they know nothing about. In this case you stating that energy only goes in certain directions is absolutely ludicrous.
It's a common feature of alarmists to base their arguments on what they imagine their opponents don't understand. Quoting Michael Webster:
The idea that energy can't go from the atmosphere to the ground because the ground is warmer is equivalent to claiming that I'll become invisible as soon as I step into the shadow of a tree, because it's brighter outside the shadow.

I don't know why I even bother answering someone who tries to defend such an obviously ludicrous statement. I thought Claudius was the most florridly delusional here, but it appears I'm mistaken.

For anyone still in possession of a functioning neuron or two, net energy flow is from hotter to cooler bodies, but energy flows in both directions. More from the hotter to the cooler, simply because the hotter body is hotter - and therefore radiates more.
So, the fact that some "deniers" use terminology poorly (ambiguously) brings you to the conclusion that this opens the door to your lunacy?
Quote | Report to administrator
Claudius Denk
#199 Claudius Denk 2014-06-10 12:14
Quoting Michael Webster:
Quoting Claudius Denk:
LOL. You should have done some research before you took this line of attack. Go to Google Groups and do a search under my name. (It just so happens I'm an expert on evolutionary theory.)

Do you deny that you have no quantitative evience/proof that CO2 has more of a thermal impact than any other gas? Answer the question you evasive twit.


I somehow doubt very much that you're an expert in anything, including evolutionary theory. Tyndal's experiments proved that CO2 had a particular effect on heat. The atmosphere is pretty much transparent to shorter wavelengths, which is why most of the energy from the sun can pass through the atmosphere, and about half is reflected back to space. Radiation from the Earth's surface however, is very similar to the radiation from a black body of the same temperature, and a whole lot of that energy can be absorbed and re-emitted by CO2 in the atmosphere.

I might take your fantastic claim that you're some kind of expert in evolutionary theory more seriously if you showed some ability to get your head around simple physics.

Do you deny that you have no quantitative evidence/proof that CO2 has more of a thermal impact than any other gas? Answer the question you evasive jackass.
Quote | Report to administrator
Claudius Denk
#200 Claudius Denk 2014-06-10 12:33
Quoting jsullivan:
PSI's science is robust unlike fake climate 'science.' Vice Chair, Pierre Latour, is a leading expert in industry in the field of thermodynamics.


John,

Webster lost this argument upthread when he was put on the spot (by myself and PO) to provide some substance to his beliefs. Knowing he is trapped his only remaining tactic is to look for an opportunity to save face and self-righteously exit the debate/argument. By resorting to an argument of authority ("our experts are smarter than your experts") you essentially open the door to that strategy. And, as you can see, Webster has taken full advantage of it with his gratuitous name dropping. My advice is, don't open the door to this tactic.

Regards,

Jim McGinn
www.solvingtornadoes.org
Quote | Report to administrator
Michael Webster
#201 Michael Webster 2014-06-10 12:39
Quoting Claudius Denk:

Do you deny that you have no quantitative evidence/proof that CO2 has more of a thermal impact than any other gas? Answer the question you evasive jackass.


Of course I deny it, and as I pointed out earlier, John Tyndall demonstrated and measured the effect over 150 years ago. What is it with you deniers? You only see what you want to see.
Quote | Report to administrator
Michael Webster
#202 Michael Webster 2014-06-10 12:49
Quoting Claudius Denk:


John,

Webster lost this argument upthread when he was put on the spot (by myself and PO) to provide some substance to his beliefs. Knowing he is trapped his only remaining tactic is to look for an opportunity to save face and self-righteously exit the debate/argument. By resorting to an argument of authority ("our experts are smarter than your experts") you essentially open the door to that strategy. And, as you can see, Webster has taken full advantage of it with his gratuitous name dropping. My advice is, don't open the door to this tactic.

Regards,

Jim McGinn
www.solvingtornadoes.org


So, not only do you deny scientific evidence that is over 150 years old, you deny ever having it pointed out to you.

Yes, you won the argument, like all those arguments you always win when you just deny any inconvenient facts that get in the way of your demented beliefs, and repeat your silly mantra's ad nauseum.

One thing I don't expect to see on this blog, is anyone bothering to defend or even acknowledge their inaccurate statements. It's impossible to pin down deniers, because every time you debunk their garbage, far from acknowledging their error, they just move onto the next transparent falsehood in their never ending list. I say never ending, but of course they'll always go back to the same failed argument they started with.

Never even a hint of respect for facts, any insight, or intellectual honesty.
Quote | Report to administrator
Claudius Denk
#203 Claudius Denk 2014-06-10 13:37
Quoting Michael Webster:


Of course I deny it, and as I pointed out earlier, John Tyndall demonstrated and measured the effect over 150 years ago. What is it with you deniers? You only see what you want to see.
Show us your reproducible experimental evidence or admit you are a fraud whose only argument is to pretend to be able to see things that cannot be demonstrated empirically.
Quote | Report to administrator
Claudius Denk
#204 Claudius Denk 2014-06-10 13:40
Quoting Michael Webster:
Of course I deny it, and as I pointed out earlier, John Tyndall demonstrated and measured the effect over 150 years ago. What is it with you deniers? You only see what you want to see.


Disregard previous post.

Show us your reproducible experimental evidence or admit you are a fraud whose only argument is to pretend to be able to see things that cannot be demonstrated empirically.
Quote | Report to administrator
Kent Clizbe
#205 Kent Clizbe 2014-06-10 15:04
Interesting conversation.

The citation of Tyndall's experiments led to a quick search for recent confirmation and/or analysis of Tyndall's experiments.

That led to a quite pitiful, but very relevant series of exchanges among high school Physics teachers. Their discussion begins with a request from a frustrated Physics teacher for a "simple experiment to demonstrate the GHE of CO2."

You'd think that for a simple effect that is driving an entire research industry, and which forms the basis for destroying capitalist economies around the world, there would be a way to demonstrate it.

But if you thought that, you'd be wrong.

Follow along with the well-meaning teacher's search for the non-existent proof.

www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=312054
Quote | Report to administrator
Greg House
#206 Greg House 2014-06-10 18:17
Guys, it surprises me how helpless you still are after all those discussions.

Firstly, the IPCC presented their "greenhouse effect" as warming the source of radiation by "back radiation", which is physically impossible.

They also mentioned alleged absorption of some IR by CO2. Even if CO2 does absorb IR and not just scatters it, the effect is already in the property of CO2 called specific heat. If you look at the numbers and the formula to calculate temperature of a mixture of gases, you will see that the difference CO2 in it's present concentration makes is about 0.001-0.0001°C.

Just focus.
Quote | Report to administrator
Michael Webster
#207 Michael Webster 2014-06-10 21:58
Quoting Greg House:
Guys, it surprises me how helpless you still are after all those discussions.

Firstly, the IPCC presented their "greenhouse effect" as warming the source of radiation by "back radiation", which is physically impossible.

They also mentioned alleged absorption of some IR by CO2. Even if CO2 does absorb IR and not just scatters it, the effect is already in the property of CO2 called specific heat. If you look at the numbers and the formula to calculate temperature of a mixture of gases, you will see that the difference CO2 in it's present concentration makes is about 0.001-0.0001°C.

Just focus.


Back radiation is measurable, and measured. Suggesting it is impossible is an inversion of not only all science, but all common sense. The implication is that heat and light can only radiate in certain directions. There is no physical law that states this is the case, and the world would be an extremely weird place if things were like this.

Specific heat of CO2 has not got anything to do with the greenhouse effect, or AGW.

More unscientific nonsense.
Quote | Report to administrator
Michael Webster
#208 Michael Webster 2014-06-10 22:05
Quoting Kent Clizbe:
Interesting conversation.

The citation of Tyndall's experiments led to a quick search for recent confirmation and/or analysis of Tyndall's experiments.

That led to a quite pitiful, but very relevant series of exchanges among high school Physics teachers. Their discussion begins with a request from a frustrated Physics teacher for a "simple experiment to demonstrate the GHE of CO2."

You'd think that for a simple effect that is driving an entire research industry, and which forms the basis for destroying capitalist economies around the world, there would be a way to demonstrate it.

But if you thought that, you'd be wrong.

Follow along with the well-meaning teacher's search for the non-existent proof.

www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=312054


That actually is a very interesting thread, particularly for those who managed to perform the experiment and see the expected results. It also has a very good description of Tyndall's experiment.

In a sane world, that thread would silence Claudius Denk's monotonous refrain that there is no evidence of the existence of any kind of GHG. Never mind the experimental evidence, there is simple physics from the molecular structure of different gases that explains why some gases are GHGs, and some not. Claudius himself benefits from some of the clearest evidence of the effect of GHG's by the fact that the Earth's temperature isn't around -15C.

I won't hold my breath for a cessation of his mindless repetitions though.
Quote | Report to administrator
Claudius Denk
#209 Claudius Denk 2014-06-11 00:46
Quoting Michael Webster:
Back radiation is measurable, and measured.
You loons labelled it "back" radiation. It's just radiation, you simpleton.Quoting Michael Webster:

Suggesting it is impossible is an inversion of not only all science, but all common sense.
It's just deceptive terminology, created to create the illusion that you have a previously unmeased quantity. You don't. All you loons have done is give what is already known a new name. It's a marketing technique.Quoting Michael Webster:
The implication is that heat and light can only radiate in certain directions.
It's only an "implication" for you post-modernist pretenders.Quoting Michael Webster:
There is no physical law that states this is the case, and the world would be an extremely weird place if things were like this.
>LOL. How about if I made up the phrase front radiation? This is the lunacy your pinhead are foisting upon us.Quoting Michael Webster:
Quote | Report to administrator
Claudius Denk
#210 Claudius Denk 2014-06-11 00:51
Quoting Michael Webster:
Quoting Kent Clizbe:
Interesting conversation.

The citation of Tyndall's experiments led to a quick search for recent confirmation and/or analysis of Tyndall's experiments.

That led to a quite pitiful, but very relevant series of exchanges among high school Physics teachers. Their discussion begins with a request from a frustrated Physics teacher for a "simple experiment to demonstrate the GHE of CO2."

You'd think that for a simple effect that is driving an entire research industry, and which forms the basis for destroying capitalist economies around the world, there would be a way to demonstrate it.

But if you thought that, you'd be wrong.

Follow along with the well-meaning teacher's search for the non-existent proof.

www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=312054


That actually is a very interesting thread, particularly for those who managed to perform the experiment and see the expected results. It also has a very good description of Tyndall's experiment.

In a sane world, that thread would silence Claudius Denk's monotonous refrain that there is no evidence of the existence of any kind of GHG. Never mind the experimental evidence, there is simple physics from the molecular structure of different gases that explains why some gases are GHGs, and some not. Claudius himself benefits from some of the clearest evidence of the effect of GHG's by the fact that the Earth's temperature isn't around -15C.

I won't hold my breath for a cessation of his mindless repetitions though.


The tern GHG isn't science. It's just a bad analogy. It's rhetoric intended to create the illusion of scientific conciseness. It's just deceptive rhetoric--scientifically meaningless.
Quote | Report to administrator
Michael Webster
#211 Michael Webster 2014-06-11 04:57
Quoting Claudius Denk:
[You loons labelled it "back" radiation. It's just radiation, you simpleton.


Regardless of it's name, it is radiation that is emitted by CO2 and other gases that heads back in the direction of the Earth's surface - and some of which hits the Earth's surface. In previous posts people suggested that such a thing was impossible - which is what I was arguing with. It takes a true denier however to put so much effort into avoiding any discussion of a the physical process by descending into a discussion of rhetoric.

As to post-modernism, it is absolutely displayed amongst climate change deniers, who all seem to believe that there is no external reality, only argument and opinion. This is precisely why your pathetic and monotonous babbling about words and their definitions is entirely irrelevant to any discussion of reality. You can live in whatever fantasy world you like to in your own head, but it will have no affect on the physical processes of the real world - the processes that sensible people are able to discuss without resorting to dishonest sophistry.
Quote | Report to administrator
Claudius Denk
#212 Claudius Denk 2014-06-11 09:17
Quoting Michael Webster:
Quoting Claudius Denk:
[You loons labelled it "back" radiation. It's just radiation, you simpleton.


Regardless of it's name, it is radiation that is emitted by CO2 and other gases that heads back in the direction of the Earth's surface - and some of which hits the Earth's surface. In previous posts people suggested that such a thing was impossible - which is what I was arguing with. It takes a true denier however to put so much effort into avoiding any discussion of a the physical process by descending into a discussion of rhetoric.
It's you loons that made up a new name for something that is already known. Radiation doesn't have a preferred direction. So calling some radiation "back" radiation is nonsense.Quoting Michael Webster:


As to post-modernism, it is absolutely displayed amongst climate change deniers, who all seem to believe that there is no external reality, only argument and opinion. This is precisely why your pathetic and monotonous babbling about words and their definitions is entirely irrelevant to any discussion of reality. You can live in whatever fantasy world you like to in your own head, but it will have no affect on the physical processes of the real world - the processes that sensible people are able to discuss without resorting to dishonest sophistry.
You loons have trouble dealing with objective reality. Out of thin air you've created the phrase, "green-house gas." It is not something you've established through measurement or through any kind of rational process whatsoever. So it's completely untestable and immeasurible. When asked to describe why a certain gas is, according to you, a greenhouse gas and why another is not all you have are references to vague analogies.
Quote | Report to administrator
John Marshall
#213 John Marshall 2014-06-11 09:40
The ''measured'' back radiation has not been correctly labeled. Just an assumption that this is the GHE in action. It is not. Whilst surface radiation may be adsorbed by the so called GHg's and return to the surface it will not increase temperature because 2nd law forbids cold warming hot. The actual ''measured'' quantity is 300W/m2. This give a RET of around 0C so colder than the surface at +14C.
Quote | Report to administrator
TeaParty1776
#214 TeaParty1776 2014-06-23 14:09
The eco-nihilists have lost. Good.
Quote | Report to administrator
#215 Guest 2014-07-19 13:15
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
TeaParty1776
#216 TeaParty1776 2014-07-19 15:45
Even if man-caused global warming is real and destructive, the best way of organizing world societies for man's surivival in the environment, is capitalist individual rights. Environmentalism is anti-man nihilism.
Quote | Report to administrator
Firefly1
#217 Firefly1 2014-07-21 11:11
LOL Exaggerate much?

I applaud you for your creative writing style, but why don't we set aside the cleaver quips and cute alliterative phrases for a moment and look at what really happened here:

Two court cases were rendered dormant due to inactivity. Meaning simply that too much time has past and they will now not be heard.

That does not count as a win. Just as Mann and Weaver's refusal to hand over their research data does not make them guilty of anything other than protecting their intellectual property, as any scientist who studies anything from slugs to neutrinos would do in the same situation.

Why should they hand their work over to a hostile group determined to undermine them by any means necessary? Is there any chance that any of you skeptics (aka capitalist cronies) will ever say "oops, we were wrong, sorry"? You will find a way to make it seem as though they are incorrect no matter what, just to further your own cause.

Just look at what you have already done. You have not one shred of evidence that, if the metadata was handed over, it would prove that the published results were false. And yet you are already stating it as fact and are going to great lengths to try to convince everyone that it is, even photoshopping a mug shot of Mann, implying that he is a criminal.

Charged, tried and convicted of an imaginary crime by the kangaroo court of Principia Scientifica. And we're all just supposed to take your word for it and follow along like good little sheeple.

You are clearly biased and therefore have zero credibility. Why should anyone listen to you?
Quote | Report to administrator
Firefly1
#218 Firefly1 2014-07-21 11:15
Quoting TeaParty1776:
Even if man-caused global warming is real and destructive, the best way of organizing world societies for man's surivival in the environment, is capitalist individual rights. Environmentalism is anti-man nihilism.


That has got to be one of the dumbest things I have ever read.

There really isn't any more to say.
Quote | Report to administrator
TeaParty1776
#219 TeaParty1776 2014-07-21 11:39
>That has got to be one of the dumbest things I have ever read.
>There really isn't any more to say.

Are you one of those "educated" Leftists of myth?
Quote | Report to administrator
TeaParty1776
#220 TeaParty1776 2014-07-21 11:43
>Just as Mann and Weaver's refusal to hand over their research data does not make them guilty of anything other than protecting their intellectual property,


The moon is made of green cheese according to my research data.
Quote | Report to administrator
Rabbitnexus
#221 Rabbitnexus 2014-07-21 15:19
Quoting TeaParty1776:
>Just as Mann and Weaver's refusal to hand over their research data does not make them guilty of anything other than protecting their intellectual property,


The moon is made of green cheese according to my research data.


OK, so where's your data for that conclusion? :-)
Quote | Report to administrator
TeaParty1776
#222 TeaParty1776 2014-07-22 18:05
My refusal to hand over my research data does not make me guilty of anything other than protecting my intellectual property,
Quote | Report to administrator
TeaParty1776
#223 TeaParty1776 2014-07-22 18:07
Globalony advocates have good intentions. Science is irrelevant.
Quote | Report to administrator
Miner49er
#224 Miner49er 2014-07-23 00:18
Any scientist is of course free to withhold the details of his research (as long as it was not funded by taxpayers).

However, the results of his research should then not be taken seriously, and certainly not used to make public policy decisions.
Quote | Report to administrator
Jimbo
#225 Jimbo 2014-07-23 01:24
Quoting Miner49er:
Any scientist is of course free to withhold the details of his research (as long as it was not funded by taxpayers).

However, the results of his research should then not be taken seriously, and certainly not used to make public policy decisions.


Nor can such work be considered science, since the heart of the scientific method is SKEPTICAL ANALYSIS of one's work.
Quote | Report to administrator
TeaParty1776
#226 TeaParty1776 2014-07-28 20:50
Quoting Rabbitnexus:
Quoting TeaParty1776:
>Just as Mann and Weaver's refusal to hand over their research data does not make them guilty of anything other than protecting their intellectual property,


The moon is made of green cheese according to my research data.


OK, so where's your data for that conclusion? :-)


Data? Data! We don' need no steekin' data! BLAM! ZING!
Quote | Report to administrator
#227 Guest 2014-08-07 18:33
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
Ezra
#228 Ezra 2014-08-10 21:13
Quoting jsullivan:

Indeed, Mann's PhD is also dubious. It was rushed through in controversial circumstances and his supervisor was none other than Barry Saltzman, a prominent alarmist activist. Whereupon as soon as Mann acquired his PhD he was appointed Lead Author by the IPCC and concocted his tree ring proxy graph with no prior experience in the field.


You assert that a PhD granted by Yale University, one of the most distinguished doctoral programs in the country, with no fewer than FOUR Nobel Prizes in Physics, is "dubious". But you didn't cite any evidence - because it was so well known? What doctoral programs in physics do you trust, mister? Want to list some?
Quote | Report to administrator
#229 Guest 2014-08-29 20:37
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
Russ Walsh
#230 Russ Walsh 2014-08-31 01:15
Has anyone notice - not PEEP about this in the mainstream media! Not a bloody peep! This is definitely a fight between darkness, deceit, deception, bullying, lying, intimidation, propaganda, leftist ideology, and truth. These are incompatible. I have NEVER seen such blatant, relentless, grinding fraud as we're witnessing with the global warming mob.
Quote | Report to administrator
TeaParty1776
#231 TeaParty1776 2014-09-01 17:55
The newspaper in my city announced that the global warming debate was over and no more anti-global warming letters would be published. Why am I thinking of Alice In Wonderland?
Quote | Report to administrator
Jenny Harisson
#232 Jenny Harisson 2014-09-19 01:42
We must aware about the laws of bankruptcy ,your something one must do because of prior agreement their financial obligations that must fix.
Quote | Report to administrator

Add comment

PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to administrator' link.
Most recent comments first.


Security code
Refresh