John Christy VS Gavin Schmidt On Climate Gate

[EyeSquaredAre]

Thank God for the few people like Dr. John Christy who have the integrity to stand firm on the real science of climate change and not cave in to bullshit politics as this puppet Gavin Schmidt clearly has.

[harbar3000]

Al Gore and the Al Goreleone crime family are a mob that is dedicated to stealing your money through taxes and fees to try to fix something that doesn't exist. Do not fall for their false religion. Pope Al and his Canadian Archbishop David Suzuki are trying to steal as much money as they can since none can run a legitimate business.

[GorterPoss]

Cohen, J. B., R. G. Prinn, and C. Wang, 2011 cast further uncertainty as to the negative radiative forcing of aerosols. There's a fair bit of wiggle room when tuning for aerosols. All the more reason for greater transparency.

[OtagoMark]

@Hofsteder There is a 100% certainty though that if the whole world drasticaly cuts carbon emissions ,and as a result plunges into economic collapse , that it will do sweet fuck all to change the climate. And the fact that the facts show man isnt the cause makes this whole thing even worse ...

[GorterPoss]

@Hofsteder From my understanding

-Jones and Mann have, at times, delayed and denied data set requests

-the CRU at UEA compromised original data sets

-Mann's statistical work could have been a lot better yet he sailed through peer review anyway

-and in general, despite the fact that so much is at stake, climatological peer review and validation standards aren't nearly as good as those of medicine (yes, that's Crichton's argument)



[GorterPoss]

@Hofsteder Culled from various sources. I realize that parts of clmategate were exaggerated and misunderstood, but some of the stuff in there is plainly unbecoming of a scientific endeavour. You have to give me something here. You're beginning to sound as if you think they're all saints.

[GorterPoss]

@Hofsteder There is clearly an effort to discredit the consensus on agw, but this doesn't go far enough in excusing misbehaviour such as the loss/destruction of data sets, peer review by colleagues, Phil Jones' infamous position on sharing his data/FOIA requests and Mann's sub-par statistical acumen. If Schmidt et al. want to influence policy, they ought renew their commitment to disinterested basic science research and the advocacy will take care of itself.

[GorterPoss]

@Hofsteder Face it, paleoclimate proxy data set building stats nerds are not in charge of public policy and don't have the time, inclination or rugged good looks(:p) to ever be so. That being the case, climate science needs a reputation of disinterestedness, neutrality and openness when assessing risks and assessing uncertainties in radiative forcing (and this reputation has been injured). Only then can ghg emissions be effectively controlled politically.

[GorterPoss]

I definitely have some reading to catch up on, but from my research, setting public policy on an issue as complex as the climate is, with all the uncertainty about the radiative forcing of aerosols, sulphates, biomass burning and land use, mission impossible if the reputation of climate science isn't squeaky clean. When you have insiders decrying the creeping of politics into climate research in an annonymous poll, a political solution to ghg emissions is a long shot.

[GorterPoss]

@Hofsteder To wit, Mike Hulme uf UEA: “It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized.The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science. It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the I.P.C.C. has run its course.”

There is no arguning that science has not been injured.

[GorterPoss]

@Hofsteder It's not one of Von Storch's scientific papers, but rather a polling of climate scientists regarding a number of different subjects. Incidentally, the vast majority of the respondents hold that AGW is taking place. The crux of the matter is how you assess the risks. If you're talking about people's lives and livelihoods, you had better have climate research that is free of aspersion in order to effectively assess risk and make public policy. I believe that has been lacking.

[GorterPoss]

@Hofsteder have not had undue political influence on the direction of climate research.

[GorterPoss]

@Hofsteder I have a political science background so I'm approaching this from a public policy perspective. I think Crichton and Pielke Jr. have it spot on when they decry the damage that politics have wrought on science. Van Storch's annonymous poll of climatologists (2008) had 1 climate scientist out of 375 who disagreed that the "direction of research in the climate change sciences has been influenced by external politics."

One wonders whether catastrophists and skewed risk assesments

[GorterPoss]

@Hofsteder I'm clearly overmatched. I'll have to consult the bibliography of State of Fear and get back to you later on that one.

In any case, is it still not somewhat presumptuous to extrapolate a catastrophe based on current GCMs?

[GorterPoss]

There isn't enough rancour and boorishness in the comments. Come on people, get to work.

[GorterPoss]

@Hofsteder "There is also, however, a continuing awareness that models do not provide a perfect simulation of reality, because resolving all important spatial or time scales remains far beyond current capabilities, and also because the behaviour of such a complex nonlinear system may in general be chaotic."

-1.5.1 Model Evolution and Model Hierarchies

I simply believe the models need to be improved before the world's economy is decarbonised in a crash program certain to harm people.

[GorterPoss]

@Hofsteder The third assessment report clearly states that because climate is a chaotic, non-linear dynamic system, long term prediction of climate is not possible. Pielke (2007) refers to such climate models as “highly formalized expression(s) of subjective uncertainty.” As Crichton opines, 'an educated guess is still a guess.'

The economy needs to be decarbonized, but I am not so sure that we should do it as a crash program on the basis of the predictions of current climate models.

[DonMeaker]

@Hofsteder Evidence is found in oil deposits, from ocean plant life, and coal from land based plant life.

[DonMeaker]

@Hofsteder Of course the most important greenhouse gas is Water. Warmer temperatures permit higher humidity, and the clouds then reflect light, causing cooling. We can confidently say that the sun's primary cycle is longer than that of the earth because the sun is much much larger than the earth, and climate would be affected by these changes in the Sun in a way that day to day changes in weather would not be.

[DonMeaker]

@Hofsteder Lets be clear: Warming is good, leading to increased plant growth, reduced size of deserts, greater success in human agriculture. If we could encourage longer growing seasons we should, but can't by pumping CO2 into the atmosphere because if we do, the increased plant biomass would remove C02 from the atmosphere, creating a cycle that will decrease C02.

[DonMeaker]

@Hofsteder Climate models include some features, and omit others. If you force CO2 levels higher, and omit the increased plant growth that will result, or evolutionary changes that accompany changed environments your model is wrong and its projections/predictions are wrong. The results of the models can not be correctly used to inform policy, and policies based on incorrect models will be wrong.

[DonMeaker]

@Hofsteder We don't predict you say, and then you assert that the climate will be 3 degrees C warmer. Do you even read your own posts?

[DonMeaker]

@Hofsteder Climate is ruled by even more stochastic fluctuations than weather, because climate is affected by slow processes as well as fast processes. By contrast, weather is not affected by slow, say 10 year processes, but climate is. Plant growth is certainly affected by CO2 levels, as is shown by rapid plant growth in greenhouses, which have higher concentrations of CO2. Now you postulate extinction from an event which has not happened, a double lie.

[DonMeaker]

@Hofsteder When it is asserted that the climate will warm due to CO2, that is a prediction. Climate is also chaotic, just with a different time constant. The feedback loops are different, for example plant growth doesn't feed back fast enough to make weather chaotic, but does feed back enough to make climate chaotic.

[DonMeaker]

@Hofsteder The fact is, we have tracked past years temperature and the carbon dioxide levels in Arctic and Antarctic ice cores. Temperature increases come first, and Carbon dioxide levels increase afterwords. The most important 'greenhouse gas' is water. Satellites show that over the last few years, the Sahara Desert has been receding, to the great improvement of human kind. Warmth is good, it puts water and CO2 into the air, increasing plant growth. AGW=wrong on all fronts, as are its policies

[DonMeaker]

@Hofsteder the Navier Stokes equations describe fluid flow with changes in density and temperature. They are chaotic, nonlinear, and can not be predicted long term. When one asserts that they can predict the future states from past states for such a system they are either ignorant or a liar. which are you?

[DonMeaker]

The emails were not released under FOIA, but should have been. CO2 increases as the oceans warm, in response to warming, not as a cause of warming. The cause of warming is sun, as has been known for hundreds of years: Grain prices are inversely correlated with sun spots, and grain prices decrease when the sun outputs more heat, and displays more sun spots.

[MrCrumb34]

It's just nice to see the opposition to GW finally being acknowledged.

[DonMeaker]

The navier stokes equations are non-linear, and chaotic. that means weather and climate are not predictable. those who pretend they can predict the future are wrong. People who are wrong should get no money.

[nickschor1]

Wonder how Christy explains his findings to AMS in 2008. He found WARMING in his data sets, and it was in near perfect agreement with all the other satellite MODEL data!

[cg22165]

The Friedman quote is just plain wrong. Mann wrote an article and in it he explained how he had constructed a graph. Someone else thought he had come up with a clever solution to the well-known decline in the correlation between the temperature record and the proxy data. (It was not a decline in temperature.) Later, someone read the email, took it out of context, and has convinced many of a conspiracy. Mann did not call it a trick or hide anything.

[DonMeaker]

@cg22165 He hid the decline. the stolen email was hidden from the foia because it was embarassing. the planet is not warming, rather has been cooling for the last 10 years, because the sun is putting out less heat.

[maunaowakea777]

@DonMeaker we went through an extended decrease in solar cycle activity. It was suppose to go back up around 2009 but stayed low through 2011. It will increase though, according to its well documented 11-year cycle. Since we have had 8 of our hottest years in the last 12, most during the cooler period of the sun cycle, I am afraid that we will have a very sharp increase in warming now as the sun cycle turns up the heat and the greenhouse gas build up remains.

[DonMeaker]

@maunaowakea777 First, warmer is good, leading to faster crop growth. Second, as trees grow, they lock up carbon. The Navier Stokes equations are non-linear, chaotic, and CANNOT be predicted long term. If all you have is fear, then get counseling, it may help you. Your psychotic fear is not a reason to steal from me.

[maunaowakea777]

@DonMeaker I don't want to steal from you, the people that are stealing from you are the cronies on wall street who got the republicans to deregulate the commodities markets and allow speculation of oil futures contracts. You pay about 75% more in gasoline right now than you would have if this didn't happen. It just also turns out that the people who work to provide disinformation about global warming (including this speaker) are funded by the same oil companies.

[DonMeaker]

@maunaowakea777 The 75% more I pay for gas is in taxes and regulation. The people who work to cause fear about global warming happen to work for the government which support theft under color of authority. Speculators buy their futures, and that puts money in, providing an incentive to create more. Deregulation would enable and encourage more creation, which leads to lower prices.

[maunaowakea777]

@DonMeaker you couldn't be more wrong, in 2003 the price of oil went up from $40.00 to $140.00 per barrel, now it is hovering around $100.00. I am sure you notice that the gas companies are quick to raise the price of gasoline as soon as the price goes up but hardly drop the price when it goes down. By allowing hedge funds to buy future's contracts they began to control about 80% of the supply. The price goes up because of hoarding. Think about it.

[DonMeaker]

@maunaowakea777 The hoarding is due to the government refusing to permit drilling and bad tax policy that encourages people to not pump their oil. The key cause of the price of oil going up is government caused inflation. The price per ounce of gold is actually lower. We allow anyone to buy oil, and then the producers take the money and produce more, if allowed by the government. If you don't think the oil company product is worth the cost, don't buy it. That cuts demand, and more for me.thanx

[maunaowakea777]

@DonMeaker oh and I suppose that is why when OPEC increases their supply targets there is absolutely no price response in the market eh??? Gold is also a commodity, being hoarded along with food contracts and such. This market is much more complex than you seem to understand.

[DonMeaker]

@maunaowakea777 But there is price response, if there was no price response, there would be no need to have a supply target. The market is more complex than what anyone can understand, but is also simple enough that anyone can understand it. If more is created, then prices will go down, until less is created. Prices permit people to decide if they prefer one package of goods vs. another. When prices go up, people can decide to buy at that price, or chose something else. Simple!

[maunaowakea777]

@DonMeaker I am telling you, there isn't a price response. Look up the chart for prices, see how it went up and then collapsed. You act like an economist so look up max keiser's piece, "the market is a hologram masking deflation"

[DonMeaker]

@maunaowakea777 The market is reacting to inflation, created by central banks to mask government overspending. When the government creates a new dollar, it spends it first, at the expense of all other dollars previously created. So the price of gold goes up, and can accelerate if fear takes hold. the price of oil goes up, to pay for demand for other packages of goods, to keep oil workers in the oil business. As OPEC increase their target, the US foolishly decreased its drilling.

[DonMeaker]

@maunaowakea777 "was supposed to_____, but ______" is an indication that methods used to predict have failed you. Of course, if you keep predicting rain, you may eventually be correct, but that doesn't mean you predict. The stopped clock is correct twice a day

[MayonR]

FOIA have been submitted to disclose the contents of the E mails and it has always been aggressively refused. And John Christy has done extensive research on the cause and has determined that the models that were proposed were completely wrong. Further the receivers that recorded this data have been found to be placed in areas where urban heating is prevalent and the outsides have also been painted darker colors instead of their original white which of course would answer the increased temps.

[gregjalbert]

WHO'S A LIAR? PROSECUTE CLIMATE CRIMINALS: Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine: greenpeace . org/usa/campaigns/global-warmi­ng-and-energy/polluterwatch/ko­ch-industries -- Billionaire oilman David Koch and his brother Charles (Koch Industries) have quietly funneled $50 million to climate-denial front groups that are working to delay policies and regulations aimed at stopping global warming is no joking matter.

[draco4506]

@gregjalbert Agreed fully with you......jail Al Gore........Michael Mann and the whole lot of them. Send all those in the IPCC to the bottom of the ocean to find the truth. Or even to the Sun for the truth.

[rugbyguy59]

Jones is back. Jones has been exonerated. Christie is desperately avoiding all we know in detail while Schmidt is willing to explain not only what we do know but also what we don't. You just get the feeling Christie is in too deep. He has staked his final reputation on everybody else being wrong and if he goes back now he'll look dumb. He has to keep going or admit a truth that will potentially destroy him.

Of course the sad thing is Blitzer is just a very very poor journalist.

[zzebowa]

Hey Schmidt, those emails are public property, as is all CRU data. We paid for it, we pay their wages, they serve us, the public.

[zzebowa]

Schmidt has nor coherent argument.

[KiwiTomCrawford]

at 2:21 he should have done the sensical thing and got to the point by saying no

[FRANK3TT]

OK, I'm a skeptic, but I respect Gavin because he does get out and debate, rare for the "science is settled crowd".

BTW, when Gavin defended Gore saying Science/Settled... well, the best I can say is that Gavin had to choose between being a good Scientist or a good Soldier.... He was a good Soldier.

[Darthbelal]

It's a fucking 24 hour news station and they can't spare an hour or so to let people have a debate. No, they've got to interupt the debate every 3 minutes so they can run commercials on how great some fucking car is or how some guy's discovery of viagra was the next best thing to learning about Jesus. It's why I hate network news.........

[ecp73]

The most important, potentially ending our existence on earth, type material is being covered and they give it seven minutes of air time. If there were two pro dooms day sayers front of camera it would have been an hour long show.

[BryanLim14]

i've met john christy before, he's an awesome professional!!!

[IdunCareLesSn00b]

Christy funded by a university of science Schmidt funded by the government?

Who would you believe?Definitely not the shill funded by the government.

This idiot has 0 evidence to back up any of the claims he made in this shilling he did.

[werecow2003]

@IdunCareLesSn00b If we have to play the political bias game, I'd point out that Christy has ties to a number of political think tanks with a dubious science reputation who lobby for free market principles, such as Heartland and the GMI. In the past, they have been on the wrong side of the tobacco wars, the CFC/ozone hole debate, the debate about acid rain, and DDT. They received funding from Exxon and other fossil fuel related businesses. Incidentally, Spencer is on the GMIs board of directors.

[werecow2003]

...also, the idea that Schmidt is a government shill makes little sense anyway, since he was already defending climate science when the decidedly anti-climate-change-science Bush administration was in charge of his employer. By contrast, Christy was testifying against that science before the senate at the time. That's not to say that he's a shill, I'm just saying the accusation against Schmidt is disingenuous.

[BeondaPale]

@IdunCareLesSn00b

Christy funded by a university of science - The University of Alabama, Huntsville is a state funded school. They BOTH work for the government.

[patrickintx]

Lol leave big oil alone already everyone knows they had nothing to do with the oil leak in the gulf it was an act of god and what could be more natural than that? Besides get real some people do need more houses than they can count they dpnt have to live in them as long as they know they have way more than they will ever need!

[EasyEs]

Both are good scientist, Gavin is generalist and I think he is qualified to speak on lots of issues with some degree of certainty.

John Christy is a specialist in data collection and modeling, as well as the atmospheric physics. I would say in 2010 where the uncertainty lies, I would say Mr Christy has some better grounding because of his experience building the data sets beings used.

[werecow2003]

@EasyEs Christy's track record is somewhat tainted, given the long history of his defense of the UAH sat data which later turned out to contain significant errors. Gavin Schmidt is much more in line with the vast majority of climate scientists who are investigating climate change, and I don't think their difference in levels of expertise is very substantial overall. As a layman, I'm inclined to side with the consensus position rather than the contrarian.

[EasyEs]

@werecow2003 I wouldn't say his record is tainted. Teasing global temperatures out of satellite data was a new undertaking which he is the expert. It is natural to expect problems with the data coming out of the gate. GISS has many problems but the managers of that data set are not very forthcoming about them.

The facts are that Gavin is rather alone in his defense of the rather weak evidence that backs estimates of high climate sensitivity. The evidence is not in yet.

[werecow2003]

@EasyEs Well, I think the main problem was that at least in the public sphere, Christy and Spencer presented the satellite data as more reliable than the various surface records.

As for arguing for high sensitivity, Gavin Schmidt is hardly alone, and he's a reasonably careful guy. He may be somewhat on the high end, but from what I've read in the literature, Christy is the bigger contrarian here.

[pointyhead1]

This Gavin Schmidt is a liar.

the studies he talks about ARE related, do use Mann or Briffa in their studies.

Note that Phill Jones actually fraudulently changed the WMO picture graphs, removed the reconstructed data and inserted SAME COLOUR extensions of INSTRUMENTAL data without letting anyone know.

Even Mann says that it would be wrong - and that nobody had ever done that..

Then he was made aware.

But in truth, , he WAS made aware of that by Jones email

[bfpccbm]

Christy seems like a reasonable scientist...

Gavin Schmidt......what's with the foreign accent....seems like Gavin is a paid govt alarmist.....and a liar.....doing what the govt is asking him to do......I wouldn't trust him.........

[AGWnot]

I've created a poll entitled,

'Do you believe that man-made CO2 is causing Global Warming?'

Just go to the link below and vote YES or NO

misterpoll*com/polls/469706

P.S. Inside the link, replace asterisk (*) with a dot (.)

PLEASE FORWARD THIS POLL TO BOTH ALARMISTS AND SKEPTICS!!! THX

[askljdf12325]

I cant believe this filthy lying scumbag Christy can keep a straight-face and pretend he doesnt know what the tree ring divergence problem is.

He makes me sick.

Roy Spencer's Intelligent Designer will make short work of him in hell.

And Gavin's right - the fact CNN is condones the stealing of private emails is disgusting. These dirty denialist fuckers should be ashamed.

[Finlandcitizen]

By the looking at the e-mail's I could hardly say they are hacked, by the catalogue of the information (e-mails and the documents) it appears more from a guy that worked inside the university and was part the of the project, could a whistleblower. That is of course only my opinion.

Just on the side note, can you disaprove Spencer's papers on the low cloud feedback effect?

[askljdf12325]

It doesn't matter if it was someone working at the university or an outside hacker - its still illegal. they are still private emails, and they still contain nothing of interest to climate science.

As for Spencer's cloud cover feedback papers: for a start, despite the way Spencer trumps them up, if you actually read his scientific publications (as opposed to his book or blog) you will find they are simply at the 'lower' end of mainstream science, and add little of interest.

Comment continued...

[askljdf12325]

Plenty of articles out there show how Roy Spencer moulds his data sets to get more conservative graphs.

A few google searches brings up some decent analysis:

try "how to cook a graph" or "Roy Spencer hides the incline"

Overall, if I were a good denialist, I would be very careful using Spencer's results - I don't think he helps your case at all. Better to stick with politicians, journalists, mining executives and other people without any specific expertise in climate science.

[Finlandcitizen]

Well, we don't know if they do hold anything. The official investigation might still bring up something.

Second, I'm not that sure about your opinion on the paper. Could you say more accuratly what you mean by the "lower" end of meanstream science? Your description sounds too vague for me for a proper response.

Thanks in advance.

[askljdf12325]

To accept Roy Spencer's science, you have to first accept at least to some extent that:

* Computer models can be a good way of making 'predictions' about the climate over the next 10-100+ years.

* The major climate related datasets can be used as suitable inputs for climate models

* In Spencer's own words: "I DO believe that an anthropogenic source for most of the warming over the last century is a plausible theory"

Comment continued...

[askljdf12325]

I know that there are plenty of denialists here on Youtube who do not accept the foundations on which Roy Spencer's science is built, and I would contend that they should be very wary using Spencer's scientific publications then, as Spencer's publications all rely on much the same models, datasets and techniques as the rest of the scientific community (with particular divergences obviously).

[EasyEs]

The reason there are divergences is because when dealing with climate sensitivity the real climate crowed uses the work of Mann and Briffa et al as gospel for paleo-climate work with climate sensitivity.

They also tend to use studies that have skewed uncertainty distributions, that assign an infinite feedback the same probability as a zero feedback distribution.

No wonder they can't conceive a cause effect relationship being wrong.

[askljdf12325]

Now I'm not a climatologist and this is youtube, so the best I can do is point to a number of analyses by qualified climatologists, which reveal a variety of errors in his 2008 paper - see my previous comment for how to find these analyses.

Spencer has obviously rebutted these, but his rebuttals sound very weak (partly, I must admit, because his English is terrible).

Comment continued...

[askljdf12325]

For example, in response to the accusation that his SOI/PDO scaling factor was out by a factor of 10, he says it "... took me 1 hour on a weekend with a very simple single idea, internet access, and an Excel spreadsheet"... and then bemoans that he doesn't have the millions of dollars that the IPCC has - but that's it. Unfortunately, if we acknowledge that if this factor was out, then his paper quickly falls apart at the seams and we are left only with his blog and book - i.e. not good science.

[EasyEs]

Asklijdf12325 , you seem like a decent guy.but you need to pull back here and read what Spencer actually said, and it makes sense in the context of the problem, of sorting out the signal forcing from an what others have picked as an arbitrary period for measuring PDO effects. It is absurd to argue PDO effects are always translated to data on a per year time scale.

Spencer makes a good case that there is a cause effect problem in the feedback component of models reviewed by the IPCC.

[askljdf12325]

The simple fact is that Spencer's results simply don't correlate very well with where the rest of the scientific community is at. Few other papers support his. Now this doesn't necessarily mean he is wrong, but it increases the chances. When we also factor in his embarrassing errors earlier in the decade regarding whether or not warming is actually occurring, his clear religious-based political bias, and his funding from Exxon, I am led to believe that he is a scientist who has jumped the shark.

[Solaufein123]

well, there are several problems with your posting. Firstly, the word "denialist" reminds me of a religion, not science.

Secondly, go and present me with the data that actually prove warming to be caused by co2.

You can`t, because there is no valid proof. Darn =(

[askljdf12325]

Haha I've wasted my time on this before.

I'll point you to a pile of evidence, and you'll either not reply and take your inane comments elsewhere; or say that all the evidence is a grand hoax and then point me to some spurious blogger who, because he agrees with you, is clearly not part of the conspiracy; or you will just change the topic and pretend you never asked me this question.

Let me know in advance which reply you have planned, before I waste my time giving you credible references.

[Solaufein123]

first off, I`m from Germany and our leading bandwagon-scientists are trying to convince people that man-made global warming will actually cause sea levels to rise to such a degree, that ancient fortresses and other tall buildings located within cities near the German coastline will vanish.

And those people are called scientists. I`m not coming from some strange blogs or anything like that. I just have yet to see any hard proof for co2 to affect the climate significantly.

Models are no proof

[askljdf12325]

>> our leading bandwagon-scientists are trying

>> to convince people...

>> that ancient fortresses and other tall buildings

>> located within cities near the German coastline

>> will vanish.

What nonsense - which scientists are saying this? Go on, show me a reference

Mainstream projections put rises at 200cm at max; the likely rise would be under 100cm. This would be devastating, but not nearly enough to submerge tall buildings.

Crazy, baseless accusations won't help your case Solaugein123

[Solaufein123]

His name is Schellnhuber. He actually said this on television. He sunk the "Holstentor" in Hansestadt Lübeck and warned that sea levels might rise by 7 m or more.

Furthermore he is one of the official consulant of the German government.

I kid you not.

[askljdf12325]

@Solaufein123

Unfortunately I don't know German, and I would hazard that a TV show is not a very good reference,but anyhow... what I do know about Schellnhuber is that he's certainly not predicting sea level rises that would be high enough to cover buildings any time soon , unless Germany's tallest building is less than 1 metre high... I haven't been there so I can't say for sure....

[askljdf12325]

He has quipped about some very long term scenarios (1000 years+), which correctly have sea level rise at many metres, but I would hardly call these 'predictions'.

I suggest this is more dumb denial beatup, screaming and out-of-context 'quoting'.

[Solaufein123]

And let me make this clear: I have nothing against climate science and I`m all for doing stuff to help our environment.

What I cannot accept is a semi-religious sect of climate-apocalyptics acting under the cover of science. Namely the IPCC.

Along with the co2-trade it needs to be abolished in order to allow climate science to return to science again, where sceptics also get to speak.

And there are sceptics, not only Christy.

[askljdf12325]

>> where sceptics also get to speak

The handful that there are already get far more than their fair share of air-time; whether that be in the press, parliament, the internet or the IPCC reports. If just a tenth of scientists toiling away in institutions around the world were to receive the same attention, you wouldn't even be able to spell sceptic.

How much of the CRU and NASA's time is wasted on debunking this drivel? How much damage to real science is criminal activity by denialists doing?

[cano21]

@askljdf12325 Most people would say that 31,000 scientists is a little more than "a handful." You'll understand that better once this anthropogenic global warming BS is put to bed for good in the upcoming year. Germany has already declared it a load of crap and other nations are beginning to do the same. Like most things, the US will be the last to understand this fact. (Gore has so much invested in it too. It will be a tough pill for the enviro-left to swallow)

[askljdf12325]

@cano21

31,000 (more like less than 4000) "scientists" is nothing compared to the overwhelming number of real scientists and scientific literature.

But I thought consensus didn't matter so why do you bring it up?

[loeufil]

@cano21

Germany has already declared it a load of crap???? Germany signed the 20-20-20 climate package of the EU less than a year ago, and that's a firm political agreement for a 20% reduction of EU27's emissions of GHG by 2020.

You should read much more and write much less...

PS: my excuses for the language faults, not my first language

[marktimmer2212]

i have heared  ipcc members say that all american judges are crossdressing faggots whit no balls whatso ever.

now if i were an american judge

i would bring these terrorists down

[londonkev]

I guess if they weren't using tricks they could always check the original data.

[IskurBlast]

God you are a idiot I've read MBH 98 the paper that had the trick in full. No where did Mann ever once say that he grafted instrumental data onto his reconstruction. The trick was akin to falsifying drug test results to hide a bad side effect.

[tippman2k01]

christy owns

[bushonomics]

And please for goodness' sake go and read the actual original emails, in context, and with the understanding that "trick" is used rather ferquently in scientific literature to describe a useful or nifty process; and that the "travesty" email doesn't say anyhting the author didn't publish in a full-length, reviewed paper, many months ago.

Next ask yourselves why it is that two emails getting taken out of context could possibly negate decades of research and study by scientists on both sides.

[bushonomics]

John Christy said this in an interview on NPR in '03 or '04: "It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."

Christy agrees that there is warming, that human activity is likely one of the causes, but he doesn't foresee imminent catastrophe either.

[digitised]

I remember when Christy was respectable, comparing his balloon data to NASA data, asking why his balloons recorded higher temps than NASAs satellites. Later they were found to have drifted by gravitational friction and were taking readings 6hrs later in the day.

I cant respect him anymore after hearing him say that the emails were 'hiding' the decline.

He MUST know it was referring to 'proxy' tree ring data showing much colder temps than direct thermometer readings.

How can he lie like that?

[ptangboy]

What is the term for the scenario where tree ring data shows higher temps than that of recorded temps? Is that dismissed also and is it referred to "hiding the increase"?

[digitised]

@ptangboy

You are comparing proxy to direct real world measurements.

Do you argue with thermometers?

No.

And neither do climate scientsts. They would not give any priority either way, which is why the data had to be adjusted to remove the faulty decline in the tree records.

It would not be dismissed without being explained, there are many factors such as pollution which has damaged global tree growth over the past 40 years which did not effect it before this time for example.

[radiospirit]

It is nice to see how all of this ties together. After being lied to ... for years on end ... we now know for certain that man-made global warming is a fraud.

[DesTroYeRuS7]

Baldy should go drink some toilet water and cool a bit.

[radiospirit]

So, who do you trust?

I believe the bald headed guy is lying his ass off!!

And oh, boo-who ... the information was hacked...

Caught you red-handed doctoring the data...

Shouldn't have to doctor the data if it really exists!!

Off with their heads!!

[AzBirdDog]

@radiospirit Baldy uses the illegal hacking as a tool to use against the data.

You're seeing a community of once highly respected scientists, being caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

Who knows how many millions in funding they got when they agreed to go along with this fraud.

And it's us, the small guys who are paying for this bogus data.

They're using our tax dollars to lie to us, YET AGAIN!

[dconjar]

Your characterization of climatologists and people concerned about AGW reflects that you have little, if any, knowledge of the science behind it.

[STEELE2211]

Good to hear a debate about climate change without the usual name calling from both sides. In my opinion the first person to resort to name calling automatically loses the debate!

Good post.

[777strangelove]

Science is not democratic debate .

But we have a new breed of "scientist" like Schmidt. He sounds like The intelligent design on evolution.

[fdarguellesjr]

they distroyed all raw data...the only shit they have is their so called "value added data"...how convinient for them.

[dconjar]

You know how to make straw man arguments! Congratulations!

[dconjar]

I fail to understand how any thinking human could take John Christy and his pack of AGW-denialist morons seriously.

Let's take a quick look at his track record:

1) For almost a decade, he tried to claim that satellite data doesn't doesn't show global warming, clinging to a debunked and statistically unsound data set as evidence

2) He contributed a chapter to "GW and Other Eco Myths," which was funded by Exxon Mobile.

Plenty more where that came from. Let's cut the denialist B.S. already.

[Lepiratepoulpe]

0:06 : Blitz has a masonic phaelus in his rear...

In the begining . he uses the " we do not have a lot of time" technique..So obvious...it urges the cast and it s squeezing them. That shmidtz is another zionist nut case.

[truefictions]

They both agree.. no proof, lots of ignorance.

Peace

[richfisherman]

Why didn't ol Wolf ask the Climate Alarmist "why the south pole is getting bigger", twice?

[dconjar]

We have practically know historical record of Antarctic ice patterns and it's virtually impossible to measure it with any degree of accuracy.

Why didn't ol' Wolf ask the climate skeptic why Antarctic ice has been melting at 10% per decade, twice?

[JasonRadley]

Schmidt and Michael Mann look uncannily similar.

[arbide2]

The whole AGW theory is not actually a theory; it never made its way past the hypothesis stage.

[FightTheJoker]

Scientists in the majority will fight tooth and nail even if it's a LIE to keep the money and to increase funding to there lies..

[savior02]

what a bunch of baloney!!!!!!!!!!! hahahaha nice try commy news network and phony paid scientists death to world gov't!!!

[PikeSdream]

Tom Wigley tells Mann that a figure SCHMIDT put together to refute Monckton is DECEPTIVE and that the match it shows of instrumental to MODEL PREDICTIONS IS A FLUKE. Says there have been a number of DISHONEST PRESENTATIONS OF MODEL OUTPUT by AUTHORS and IPCC.(1255553034)

CRU searchable database of the leaked info at eastangliaemails

[PikeSdream]

ClimateGate PaleoClimatology 2001BC an Email Odyssey

/watch?v=MDezKDCe9S0

ClimateGate Who's Who

/watch?v=Cu_ok37HDuE

CRU searchable database of the leaked info at eastangliaemails

[kolnidre666]

How ironic for Schmidt to invoke Freedom of Information requests, when the leaked (not hacked) emails show evidence that the conspirators were prepared to block, ignore, or flaunt FOI requests and if that didn't work to delete their electronic paper trails.

Science has never been about consensus. The very use of the term betrays the political nature of this whole agenda, and Copenhagen and all the bickering about who's gonna pay and who's gonna get money, not science, says it all.

[RateBuddha]

I WOULD LOVE for ppl to leak out more even if it is illegal ... They are not Terrorist they are patriots protectors of freedom! If who ever really release the the emails gets arrested and charged because of this than there should be an up rise of the ppl TO DEMAND more EVIDENCE than what they want us to believe. Climategate and Al Gore should be charged for what they did, if they are not than WTF IS OUR GOVERNMENT really for ?

[PikeSdream]

Funkhouser says hes pulled every TRICK up HIS SLEEVE to MILK his Kyrgistan series. Doesnt think its productive to JUGGLE the CHRONOLOGY STATISTICS any MORE than HE HAS ALREADY.(0843161829)

Wigley discusses FIXING an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of MAKING the results LOOK Both Warmer BUT Still PLAUSIBLE. (1254108338)

CRU searchable database of the leaked info at eastangliaemails

[CosmosPrivateer]

Did you ever wonder if the entire system is fake?

I don't mean part I mean all of it.

The Sun is what controls our planet more than anything.

[bfpccbm]

Global pedophiles.......brainwashing our children.......and ultimately stealing our freedom........and screw Obama........

[danmanjones]

Schmidt = cocksucker. Cereal.

[IskurBlast]

Hey that little turd Gavin came out of from behind is fucking computer. Nothing like blogging on the taxpayer dime huh Gavin?

[mrdavecdn]

haha can u see the real scientist smile when he starts with the out of context bullshit

[hancockification]

watch?v=JlTGEPP6evo

watch that video ^ and ask yourself if an idleing car, coal factory, traffic jammed highways, or even your dogs farts will ever have the same effect.

Man influenced or not, global warming is a bloody hoax.

[ace8842]

Not a bad debate for CNN. I'm not buying the whole "trick" thing and it being out of context. Computer programmers who have looked at the code found it to be amateur and I think hide the decline was exactly what the CRU leaders intended to do.

[IskurBlast]

But its just a trick. Its no different than when the guy in the Fugitive sent false liver samples to the FDA to hide the fact that Provasic was causing liver damage. Wait a minute???? Isn't that unethical.

[door32]

Gavin "that's just not true" Schidt

Repeating that phrase does not make you right Gavin you sad shill

[pointyhead1]

@door32 "not true" Schidt...says nothing about why it must be hiddenby "the trick"...and how hiding it is to be justified.

Bavin Schidt has tricks about the trick.

Neither is it a "trick' in the sense he attempts to protray it.

[PVEngineer1]

As a civil engineer & computer programmer, I have been reading the CRU e-mails & programs relating to the climate programs. They have ASSUMED that increasing temperature will precipitate a positive feedback via the water vapor cycle. However, work by Dr Christy, Dr Jensen & Dr Lindzen indicate a strong negative feedback. Also, problems with Antarctic cooling & current 11 year cooling trend show that the models are not accurate now or in the future.

[thefullmonte2003]

you breathe out carbon you morons!!!!!!!!! wtf "we are breathing and causing global warming" this is a fucking cult.

[kalpoider]

lol such a important subject but they have to answer quickly cause they don't have much time CNN it towing the line for the NWO