Opinion
Fact-based climate debate
December 16, 2009
Advertisement
It is crucial that scientists are factually accurate when they do speak out, that they ignore media hype and maintain a clinical detachment from social or other agendas. There are facts and data that are ignored in the maelstrom of social and economic agendas swirling about Copenhagen.
Greenhouse gases and their effects are well-known. Here are some of things we know:
• The most effective greenhouse gas is water vapor, comprising approximately 95 percent of the total greenhouse effect.
• Carbon dioxide concentration has been continually rising for nearly 100 years. It continues to rise, but carbon dioxide concentrations at present are near the lowest in geologic history.
• Temperature change correlation with carbon dioxide levels is not statistically significant.
• There are no data that definitively relate carbon dioxide levels to temperature changes.
• The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide logarithmically declines with increasing concentration. At present levels, any additional carbon dioxide can have very little effect.
We also know a lot about Earth temperature changes:
• Global temperature changes naturally all of the time, in both directions and at many scales of intensity.
• The warmest year in the U.S. in the last century was 1934, not 1998. The U.S. has the best and most extensive temperature records in the world.
• Global temperature peaked in 1998 on the current 60-80 year cycle, and has been episodically declining ever since. This cooling absolutely falsifies claims that human carbon dioxide emissions are a controlling factor in Earth temperature.
• Voluminous historic records demonstrate the Medieval Climate Optimum (MCO) was real and that the “hockey stick” graphic that attempted to deny that fact was at best bad science. The MCO was considerably warmer than the end of the 20th century.
• During the last 100 years, temperature has both risen and fallen, including the present cooling. All the changes in temperature of the last 100 years are in normal historic ranges, both in absolute value and, most importantly, rate of change.
Contrary to many public statements:
• Effects of temperature change are absolutely independent of the cause of the temperature change.
• Global hurricane, cyclonic and major storm activity is near 30-year lows. Any increase in cost of damages by storms is a product of increasing population density in vulnerable areas such as along the shores and property value inflation, not due to any increase in frequency or severity of storms.
• Polar bears have survived and thrived over periods of extreme cold and extreme warmth over hundreds of thousands of years — extremes far in excess of modern temperature changes.
• The 2009 minimum Arctic ice extent was significantly larger than the previous two years. The 2009 Antarctic maximum ice extent was significantly above the 30-year average. There are only 30 years of records.
• Rate and magnitude of sea level changes observed during the last 100 years are within normal historical ranges. Current sea level rise is tiny and, at most, justifies a prediction of perhaps ten centimeters rise in this century.
The present climate debate is a classic conflict between data and computer programs. The computer programs are the source of concern over climate change and global warming, not the data. Data are measurements. Computer programs are artificial constructs.
Public announcements use a great deal of hyperbole and inflammatory language. For instance, the word “ever” is misused by media and in public pronouncements alike. It does not mean “in the last 20 years,“ or “the last 70 years.” “Ever” means the last 4.5 billion years.
For example, some argue that the Arctic is melting, with the warmest-ever temperatures. One should ask, “How long is ever?” The answer is since 1979. And then ask, “Is it still warming?” The answer is unequivocally “No.” Earth temperatures are cooling. Similarly, the word “unprecedented” cannot be legitimately used to describe any climate change in the last 8,000 years.
There is not an unlimited supply of liquid fuels. At some point, sooner or later, global oil production will decline, and transportation costs will become insurmountable if we do not develop alternative energy sources. However, those alternative energy sources do not now exist.
A legislated reduction in energy use or significant increase in cost will severely harm the global economy and force a reduction in the standard of living in the United States. It is time we spent the research dollars to invent an order-of-magnitude better solar converter and an order-of-magnitude better battery. Once we learn how to store electrical energy, we can electrify transportation. But these are separate issues. Energy conversion is not related to climate change science.
I have been a reviewer of the last two IPCC reports, one of the several thousand scientists who purportedly are supporters of the IPCC view that humans control global temperature. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many of us try to bring better and more current science to the IPCC, but we usually fail. Recently we found out why. The whistleblower release of e-mails and files from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University has demonstrated scientific malfeasance and a sickening violation of scientific ethics.
If the game of Russian roulette with the environment that Adrian Melott contends is going on, is it how will we feed all the people when the cold of the inevitable Little Ice Age returns? It will return. We just don’t know when.
More like this
- Climate-warming gases rising faster than expected 2 comments / February 15, 2009
- Scientists measure carbon dioxide in New York City July 20, 2009
- Climate experts detail ways to combat global warming May 5, 2007
- U.N. sees way, no will to control warming March 6, 2001
- Scientists to lay out ways to head off worst of climate change at least cost April 24, 2007
Top ads RSS
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Highway patrol: Driver had been drinking before injury accident on K-10 Sunday morning December 14, 2009 · 91 comments
- Fact-based climate debate December 16, 2009 · 171 comments
- Suspect in Wednesday night police chase released from Douglas County jail December 17, 2009 · 25 comments
- On the street: Does Tiger Woods deserve to be voted Athlete of the Decade? December 17, 2009 · 74 comments
- White Americans’ majority to end by 2050 December 17, 2009 · 103 comments
- Belly Bump and Grind: Lawrence embraces the swaying subculture of belly dance December 17, 2009 · 40 comments
- Eudora fire chief submits resignation December 17, 2009 · 2 comments
- Mangino, KU settle for $3 million December 17, 2009 · 65 comments
- Kansas unemployment rate shows slight improvement December 18, 2009 · 1 comment
- On the street: What's the best movie you've seen this year? December 16, 2009 · 144 comments
- Fact-based climate debate December 16, 2009
- Veg out: Downtown bistro offers Lawrence’s first full-service vegetarian restaurant in years December 16, 2009
- Mangino, KU settle for $3 million December 17, 2009
- Firefighter recruits to graduate December 17, 2009
- Baldwin grad flying high as chief pilot of Boeing's 787 Dreamliner December 16, 2009
- Tonganoxie/Eudora Kansas Turnpike interchange to open on Dec. 29 December 17, 2009
- Belly Bump and Grind: Lawrence embraces the swaying subculture of belly dance December 17, 2009
- Statehouse Live: Parkinson says no more cuts to education December 17, 2009
- KU officials face tough questioning from regents over new bus building December 17, 2009
- Regents approve increase to KU room and board rates that average 2.65 percent December 17, 2009
16 December 2009
at 5:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
U.S. Business Interests Suspected in 'Fabricated' Climate Scandal
By Staff, Agence France Presse
Environment: The emails that have right-wingers frothing aren't scandalous. The issue is who hacked the scientists' computers, and what they had to gain from undermining their research.
http://www.alternet.org/environment/1…
16 December 2009
at 5:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
US business interests suspected in ‘fabricated’ climate scandal
By Agence France-Presse
Sunday, December 13th, 2009 — 12:02 pm
http://rawstory.com/2009/12/business-…
16 December 2009
at 5:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
The best way for us to reduce pollution is to boycott energy use at every opportunity which is something that does not require new technology yet saves all of us money,money,money and more money.
Union of Concerned Scientists/Global Warming Contrarians
BASIC
* Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the “Climategate” Manfuactured Controversy
* New Book “SuperFreakonomics” Mischaracterizes Climate Science
* Global Warming Skeptic Organizations
* Crichton Thriller State of Fear
• UCS Examines 'The Skeptical Environmentalist'
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/…
our analysis
* ExxonMobil Report: Smoke Mirrors & Hot Air
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/…
Global Warming
Global warming is one of the most serious challenges facing us today. To protect the health and economic well-being of current and future generations, we must reduce our emissions of heat-trapping gases by using the technology, know-how, and practical solutions already at our disposal.
*The Union of Concerned Scientists at the Copenhagen Climate Negotiations
As talks intended to prevent the worst consequences of climate change get underway in Copenhagen , UCS's team of international policy experts and scientists are on-site, working hard to deliver the urgently needed agreement. Keep tabs on their activities and hear other news and analysis from the conference via our video updates.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/
*Key Provisions in the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act
Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) introduced the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act. Though the bill in many ways mirrors the strong comprehensive framework of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) that passed in the House in June, there are several key areas in which the legislation differs.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/
*Costs of Climate Inaction
Failing to act on climate change is prohibitively expensive—from flooding and storm damage in coastal communities to health care costs and agricultural losses in our heartland. Unchecked climate change could saddle taxpayers with hundreds of billions of dollars in damages. Learn about costs in your region, and the Senate bill aimed at limiting our climate impact.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/
*New Study Shows Sensible Path to Clean Energy Economy
Climate 2030: A National Blueprint for a Clean Energy Economy found that implementing a smart set of climate, energy, and transportation policies can save consumers and businesses money while deeply reducing our nation's heat-trapping emissions.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/
* All of the above are green dollar savers that fit into wallets
16 December 2009
at 5:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jaywalker (Anonymous) says…
This should stir things up.
16 December 2009
at 8:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
melott (Anonymous) says…
As I said, it's easy to mislead rapidly. I will address the first three points:
1. This is true, and well-known. However, water moves rapidly in and out of the atmosphere (evaporation, rain, snow) and isn't a fixed quantity. CO2 and methane change slowly. Once in the ground or atmosphere they tend to stay there, unless forced (eg by burning lots of coal). A known effect of global warming is that an increase in CO2 increases the average temperature a little, which causes a bit more water to evaporate, and increase global warming, which…. Conclusion: true, but misleading.
2. True, & well-known. The last million years or so have been
very cool. Humans evolved during one of the cooler long periods in geologic history. Most of the time the Earth was ice-free, but
it's been a long time since things were like that. CO2 is now lower than the average time, when you had a dinosaur infested swamp or something like that. On the other hand it is higher than it has been for more than a million years. Certainly since Homo Sapiens evolved. Conclusion: true, but misleading.
3. Probably true. He didn't say correlation over what time period, and that must be specified for the statement to be meaningful. You can always find some period where it does not correlate, even if it does for most. Give him the benefit of the doubt. Conclusion: True, but misleading.
He claims to have been involved in climate change and study for 50 years. Let me show the results of some checking:
A. http://www.desmogblog.com/lee-c-gerhard
Lee C. Gerhard
Research and Background
Gerhard is a retired geologist from the University of Kansas. He has government and industry experience in petroleum exploration, research and exploration program management, oil and gas regulation and reservoir geology,,,Gerhard has published 13 research articles in peer-reviewed journals, mainly on the subject of resource geology in the oil and gas sector.
Gerhard and the NRSP
Gerhard is listed as an “Allied Expert” for a Canadian group called the “Natural Resource Stewardship Project,” (NRSP) a lobby organization that refuses to disclose its funding sources…
B. http://www.colorado.edu/cwa/bios.html…
Principal geologist of the Kansas Geological Survey, Lee C. Gerhard received his B.S. in geology at Syracuse University and his M.S. and Ph.D. at the University of Kansas. He has combined academic, government and industry leadership and technical appointments, including petroleum exploration, management of exploration programs, oil and gas regulation, reservoir geology and management of research. His research interests are in carbonate sedimentology, petroleum geology and environmental public policy. He has been the state geologist of North Dakota, and led a marine laboratory. Prior to returning to Kansas, he was the Getty professor of geological engineering at the Colorado School of Mines and operated an independent petroleum exploration company.
Need I say more?
16 December 2009
at 8:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
Regarding point #2— All of the billions of tons of fossil fuels we are now burning up and shooting into the atmosphere were sequestered during a time of higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and much higher global temperatures, over a period of millions of years.
In other words, we are discharging a battery that took millions of years to charge, and we're doing it over a period of a century or two. And we're supposed to believe that that will have zero effect on the climate— a climate that even the so-called skeptics acknowledge varies greatly over time?
16 December 2009
at 8:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…
Al Gore should be arrested, have all his assets seized, tried and imprisoned…….just like Bernie Madoff.
16 December 2009
at 8:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“The warmest year in the U.S. in the last century was 1934, not 1998. The U.S. has the best and most extensive temperature records in the world.”
This is just stupid. The issue is GLOBAL climate change, not what happens in North America during one summer.
16 December 2009
at 8:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“Global temperature peaked in 1998 on the current 60-80 year cycle, and has been episodically declining ever since. ”
Misleading statements such as this clearly demonstrate that you are not really interested in “fact-based debate,” Lee.
You fail to note that temperatures since 1998 are still significantly higher than temperatures before 1998. The first decade of this century is the warmest on record.
16 December 2009
at 8:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…
“The issue is GLOBAL climate change, not what happens in North America during one summer.”
Really? Tell that to a solid majority of adults who feel Al Gore and the far-left are responsible for this ongoing debacle.
16 December 2009
at 8:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…
In other words, the US is percieved to be at the epicenter of the global warming hysteria. Al Gore is a US citizen, get it?
16 December 2009
at 8:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
You're an idiot, Tom.
16 December 2009
at 8:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…
melott (Anonymous) says…
“Need I say more?”
Yes, you didn't really say much anything at all. You can call his facts misleading, but without saying why then you are the one doing the misleading. And posting his resume like it's an indictment? That's just bush league.
16 December 2009
at 8:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“Yes, you didn't really say much anything at all.”
He said enough. If you want more said, why don't you say it yourself?
16 December 2009
at 8:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…
You're an idiot, bozo.
16 December 2009
at 9:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“This is just stupid. The issue is GLOBAL climate change, not what happens in North America during one summer.”
The US has the best temperature record in the world. Your desire to go with less accurate data from third world countries that just so happens to fit with your beliefs says a lot about a willingness to ignore reality in favor of your dream world. Don't you think it's odd that there's a correlation between how wealthy a country is and how much warming it has “experienced” over the last 100 years?
16 December 2009
at 9:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jacob123 (Anonymous) says…
There are no “facts” just data that can be massaged and manipulated, especially when millions of dollars in research grants depend on a scientists conclusions. There is systemic corruption.
16 December 2009
at 9:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“He said enough. If you want more said, why don't you say it yourself?”
Because I want him to say his conclusion himself. I don't want to be accused of reading too much into things…
16 December 2009
at 9:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
So you're invested in stupidity. Nothing new there, LO.
16 December 2009
at 9:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
georgiahawk (Anonymous) says…
One fact that we can all bet on, Tom is an idiot! Why is it that he fights so hard for big business destroying America and our way of life? Doesn't he love America?
16 December 2009
at 9:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jacob123 (Anonymous) says…
Gore should get an award for politicizing science.
16 December 2009
at 9:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
melott (Anonymous) says…
What we do about the science is political by nature, because it involves making decisions about what to do. The deniers have decided to approach it by trying to confuse the science.
With regard to my conclusions, if you can't figure out what I meant, then I understand why you “are where you are”.
16 December 2009
at 9:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jacob123 (Anonymous) says…
All my research says that governments are unable to solve our smallest problems. And the GCC will result in taxes and waste and nothing will be “fixed”. Why do alarmist ignore this science?
16 December 2009
at 9:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
georgeofwesternkansas (Anonymous) says…
How do you in fact make a carbon atom?
I am sure that all of you Gore deciples can provide that simple bit of information.
16 December 2009
at 9:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“All my research”
Then you really shouldn't limit your “research” to the likes of O'Reilly, Limbaugh and Beck. Talk about alarmist idiots.
16 December 2009
at 9:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“How do you in fact make a carbon atom?”
If you ask a stupid question, you'll likely get a stupid answer.
16 December 2009
at 9:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
I love it when liberals try to shift the focus off the scientist who have a political agenda and who hide data which doesn’t support man-made global warming, to those who hacked the computers. Yes, the hackers are the real villains…I wonder if you would be saying the same thing if hackers found email that acted as an indictment against a conservative individual or cause. I won’t hold my breath.
The real funny part is that that liberals claim those who don't agree the science concludes global warming is man-made are biased and have a pecuniary interest in “distorting facts.” However, they fail to realize that the Al Gore's of the world, and many others who support the theory of man-made global warming, are heavily invested in “green technology” and want more and more subsidies to line their own pockets. But ignoring informaiton which doesn't support their preconceived notions isn't a new concept to many liberals.
16 December 2009
at 9:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
georgeofwesternkansas (Anonymous) says…
Ok bozo I am stupid. How do you make a carbon atom?
16 December 2009
at 9:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
Too bad none of the hacked emails do anything to disprove the data or the science, satirical.
But go ahead and keep harping on the hacked emails as if it actually means anything.
16 December 2009
at 9:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…
We have a winner!! GAhawk equates the desire for a capitalistic society with being an idiot.
WOW!!!
Call me an idiot, I really don't care, but at least I'm not sitting here waiting for a handout. That must be a humbling experience.
Thanks for the chuckle, georgia. BTW, gahawk, are saying the global warming/climate change hysteria has NOT become 'big business'? Al Gore would probably disagree. It surely is becoming big business for the US gubment.
God help us all.
16 December 2009
at 9:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Olympics (Anonymous) says…
Jacob you clearly had your head in the sand for the last several decades….find a republican platform that acknowledges evolution and admits the latest creationist idea is crap. Or Openly discusses the age of the earth…Or read “The Republican War on Science” for more recent history.
Conservatives and the republican party have repeatedly undermined their credibility when it comes to science and biology in particular.
16 December 2009
at 9:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
How can they go wrong with Chavez & Mugabe addressing the gathering in Nopehagen?
16 December 2009
at 9:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Melott…
“Need I say more?”
Actually, yes. I would very much like to know why you believe Mr Gerhard’s resume makes him biased. And if he is attempting to mislead, is his misleading worse than the scientists who hid data and exaggerated to support rapid social acceptance of the theory of man-made global warming?
Also, I noticed you didn’t attempt to counter his other facts. Wouldn’t an objective individual question the theory of man-made global warming when the models predicted the earth’s temperature would continue to rise after 1998, but instead temperatures have fallen? If that computer simulation is wrong, do you think it is possible the other computer simulations which predict widespread calamities are incorrect?
16 December 2009
at 9:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“I would very much like to know why you believe Mr Gerhard’s resume makes him biased.”
Isn't it obvious? For all the crap that's spewed about climate scientists doing climate research strictly for the money, if you're going to go into science for the money, Gerhard's field is a much better route to take.
16 December 2009
at 9:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Bozo…
“This is just stupid. The issue is GLOBAL climate change, not what happens in North America during one summer.”
Perhaps you need to teach geography. I had no idea North America was not located anywhere on the globe. Or perhaps you are suggesting that North America is on the globe, but climate change affected everywhere but North America (one of the largest producers of greenhouse gases). Either way, those are some startling revelations.
16 December 2009
at 9:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jacob123 (Anonymous) says…
Let’s assume for a minute that climate change is man made and actually a threat to the planet. Do any of you honestly believe that governments will be able to curb or reverse climate change?
16 December 2009
at 9:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
Jeez, satirical, that was even stupider. Perhaps you need an education on the meanings of “global,” “climate” and “weather.” Although clearly, the only dictionary you have is one that supports your political biases.
16 December 2009
at 9:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jacob123 (Anonymous) says…
Saterical,
It is a soft science ;)
16 December 2009
at 9:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“Do any of you honestly believe that governments will be able to curb or reverse climate change?”
Not if we elect Republicans.
16 December 2009
at 9:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
zbarf (Anonymous) says…
People…remember that climate change is like a religion to many people…and to call that into question is the equivalent of blasphemy to a radical Muslim.
“No mater the facts, my life if for you!”
16 December 2009
at 9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Bozo…
“if you're going to go into science for the money, Gerhard's field is a much better route to take…”
So your logic is…any scientist that chooses a field of work wherein s/he gets paid well, must have became a scientist only for the money…and therefore isn’t really a scientist….and their observations are necessarily false? So in your opinion someone can only be label a scientist if s/he is poor or is a scientist for solely altruistic reason? And only scientist can observe facts?
Wow! Another startling revelation by Bozo.
16 December 2009
at 9:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
toddtrip (Anonymous) says…
oh wait ––––- we are in the state building a new coal plant, what's up with that?
16 December 2009
at 9:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LesBlevins (Anonymous) says…
Mr. Gerhard speaks very well for the extractive industries that depend on mining finite fossil fuels and selling them to us to further enrichen their stockholders at the expense of today's cash strapped consumers and at the expense of future generations who will suffer the consequences.
I especially like his skill with the many quarter truths (not half truths) he issued in this piece - like the one about how water vapor comprises about 95% of greenhouse effect and then not pointing out that as the earth's temperature rises due to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere more surface water evaporates and turns to water vapor at a higher rate and the earth's atmosphere is able to hold higher amounts of water vapor and more water in the atmosphere leads to more droughts and more flooding due lack of rain in some areas and to heavy downpours in others that lasts longer and all the droughts and floods lead to more drying and rotting vegetation leading to more methane release and more global warming.
16 December 2009
at 9:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“People…remember that climate change is like a religion to many people”
And remember, the people who say this know very few facts, and get all their information from people who know very few facts.
16 December 2009
at 9:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jacob123 (Anonymous) says…
Bozo you put enormous faith into human beings with a (D) after their names. I wish I had your faith in those who sell senate seats, hide bricks of cash in the freezer and drop nuclear bombs on civilians.
16 December 2009
at 9:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Bozo…
“Jeez, satirical, that was even stupider.”
I know you are but what am I? Next time when you want to digress to childish name calling, why don’t you at least back it up with some evidence or logic. Or is that asking too much?
But seriously, these were your words. I am just trying to understand what you are trying to say. Because based on your statement, you must think North America isn’t locate on the planet Earth or is somehow immune to changes that affect the rest of the Earth.
16 December 2009
at 9:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
melott (Anonymous) says…
OK, I will fall for it just to keep you happy.
His resume clearly shows that he has economic interests and a career based on oil and gas exploration. Secondarily, it shows that he has not worked much if any on climate change, except as a lobbyist. On your second point in your first paragraph, I don't believe that this has happened except in a very small number of cases.
I didn't attempt to deal with his entire list because you can see how much space it took to deal with 3 points. And still some people here *apparently* did not understand what I meant. Then you mention one point (1998). You did not say whether you were using global or North American temperatures. Actually, the 2000 decade was the warmest globally since records started. 9 of the 10 warmest years are in this decade. 2009 is the 5th warmest year. All globally averaged.
It is always possible that science can be incorrect. I don't think it is likely that modern climate simulations are very far off. I believe they do not include a probable 80 year sunspot cycle, which *might* cause a leveling off for the next decade, after which the warming would resume.
16 December 2009
at 10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
LesBlevins…
“Mr. Gerhard speaks very well for the extractive industries that depend on mining finite fossil fuels and selling them to us to further enrichen their stockholders at the expense of today's cash strapped consumers and at the expense of future generations who will suffer the consequences.”
Yes, Mr. Gerhard is obviously biased in favor of the petroleum industry and other world destroying enterprises. I think Mr. Gerhard’s bias is most evident when he advocates for development of alternative energy sources, which would hurt the “extractive industries,” when he says, “(a)t some point, sooner or later, global oil production will decline, and transportation costs will become insurmountable if we do not develop alternative energy sources.”
Your statement has shown that you clearly are not prejudicial against these industries, so I will believe you, instead of the biased Mr. Gerhard…
16 December 2009
at 10:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
barrypenders (Anonymous) says…
Which science is being used? Ideology Science (IS) or Antiseptic Science (AS)?
Stimulus, IS, and Posercare live unprecedented
Darwin bless you all
16 December 2009
at 10:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
No, satirical, what I would say is Gerhard really wasn't doing pure science. His research had one purpose, and one purpose only, which was to extract and process fossil fuels so that they could be sold by an industry well known for its greed and cavalier and callous attitude towards the environment and any people who might get in the way of doing what they want to do, whether it's fishermen in Alaska, Bedouin in the Middle East or anyone living in a coastal area anywhere on the planet. That you don't understand that is not surprising, given your general predilection for willful ignorance.
16 December 2009
at 10:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
preebo (Anonymous) says…
I must have missed this “solid majority” that believes climate change is not a real issue. What I did read a few days ago, was that a majority Americans *DO* believe climate change is a *REAL* and to address it would go far to address the current joblessness situation.
16 December 2009
at 10:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
remember_username (Anonymous) says…
I'd have to hand it to Melott for pointing out the most significant problem with the climate change debate. Too many of the “experts” have an agenda when interpreting and presenting the facts to the public. Clearly Mr. Gerhard has an interest in protecting the interests of the energy industry. Does this make him any less an expert? No! Does it make him a liar? No! But that information should give a reasonable person pause when considering the facts he presents. Unfortunately, there are too few reasonable persons out there anymore. Lazy thinking and immediate gratification is the way of America today.
16 December 2009
at 10:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
barrypenders (Anonymous) says…
A few years ago, I read on a bathroom stall at WESCO, that the earth didn't get warm until the plant life and dinosaurs flourished. They all flourished so much so that the atmosphere got sweltering hot from CO2 emissions. Then things petered out and the earth got really cold, like “ice age”.
There was more to read, but, I completed my paperwork and didn't finish the hypothesis.
Stimulus, Hypothesis, and Posercare live unprecedented
Darwin bless you all
16 December 2009
at 10:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…
It doesn't compute for sure, that bozo, who claims to be in the scientific “know”, will quickly resort to name calling directed at anyone who disputes or questions his scientific acumen. You're always good for a good laugh, you clown you! Although, it does sort of explain the hijinks with Climate Research Unit emails. Those scientists really are a bunch of mischievous rascals!
16 December 2009
at 10:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jazzman (Anonymous) says…
Thank you, Mr. Gerhard. You are among tens of thousands of scientists who are a voice of reason and sanity.
16 December 2009
at 10:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Melott…
“OK, I will fall for it just to keep you happy.”
Fall for what? You offered to say more (unless you were being misleading.). I simply accepted your offer.
“His resume clearly shows that he has economic interests and a career based on oil and gas exploration. “ - Melott
Assuming someone who is biased is necessarily wrong, is a logical fallacy. I have heard many liberals claim that even though the scientist whose letters were stolen were biased against research supporting man-made global, didn’t mean they were wrong about the theory man-made global warming.
“Secondarily, it shows that he has not worked much if any on climate change, except as a lobbyist.” - Melott
I do not know if you are trying to be misleading or simply did a poor google search. But when I googled his name, I cam across reports dating back over a decade on his research regarding climate change (and that was just a cursory glance at the first two pages).
Also, do you have evidence that his job as a lobbyist is to oppose the theory of man-made global warming?
“On your second point in your first paragraph, I don't believe that this has happened except in a very small number of cases.” - Melott
So you are claiming that the stolen emails aren’t legitimate? Even if it has happened in only a very small number of cases, you still didn’t answer my question.
“I didn't attempt to deal with his entire list because you can see how much space it took to deal with 3 points. And still some people here *apparently* did not understand what I meant.” - Melott
I will give you the benefit of the doubt re: why you didn’t want to do the entire list. I assume your overall intentions was to show this author was biased, and therefore should be distrusted. But again, that doesn’t disprove his facts.
“You did not say whether you were using global or North American temperatures.” - Melott
Does it matter when the scientific model predicting an increase was wrong?
“It is always possible that science can be incorrect. I don't think it is likely that modern climate simulations are very far off. I believe they do not include a probable 80 year sunspot cycle, which *might* cause a leveling off for the next decade, after which the warming would resume.” - Melott
So even though scientific models were wrong about increasing of temperatures since 1998, you still think it is likely to occur in the future. Good to know your faith hasn't been affected by evidence which doesn't support your theory.
Also, I find it interesting that when those in the scientific community who support the man-made global warming theory are confronted by data which contradict their conclusion (reference 1998), they blame earth climate cycles and solar cycles to explain it away. But when earth and solar cycles are used by those who don’t support the theory of man-made global warming, they are attacked as biased.
16 December 2009
at 10:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Bozo…
“No, satirical, what I would say is Gerhard really wasn't doing pure science.”
So you are backing away from your previous statements and making a new argument. You could have simply admitted you were wrong, and then I would be happy to move on to your next argument.
16 December 2009
at 10:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawklawrence (Anonymous) says…
I really enjoyed reading this article because it was not full of political rhetoric. It was a well articulated expression of Mr. Gerhard's logic based on his lifetime of research in the field.
But just because he is intelligent and vastly experienced does not mean he is correct in all of his conclusions and facts. It does not mean he is wrong either. It is simply a good beginning of a discussion that we are missing when biased politicians waste our time with their endless and meaningless debates and rants designed to inflame naivete (and hopelessly uninformed) voters.
I would like to see more of these type of articles including the alternative viewpoints from reasonable and qualified sources. That is what we are missing in the media today.
“Reasonable discussions and honest debates” are what I am longing for. Not the trash we see in the media today.
16 December 2009
at 10:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LesBlevins (Anonymous) says…
Mr. Gerhard probably thinks coal is alternative energy like Rep. Lynn Jenkins.
Here is what Lynn Jenkins writes in a response to a letter I wrote to her;
Dear Mr. Blevins,
Thank you so much for taking the time to contact me with regard to alternative energy and the need to reduce our reliance on foreign oil. As your representative in Washington, I want you to know how much I value your thoughts and concerns.
I share your view that our reliance on foreign sources of energy is becoming an ever increasing liability. There's an all of the above approach Congress should consider. This would involve alternative energy sources such as wind, nuclear and coal, expanded drilling and exploration, as well as conservation. While many favor one solution over another, I believe all of these alternatives can lead us to energy independence.
Thank you again for contacting me. Please never hesitate to call, email, or write if you have any issues or concerns on your mind. Also feel free to visit my website at www.lynnjenkins.house.gov where you can see what I have been up to and sign up for my weekly newsletter.
16 December 2009
at 10:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Vic (Anonymous) says…
Here's the biggest fact of all:
Scientists are using figures, they say, that mention temperatures, readings on CO2 levels, and the like that date back, according to the original poster, over 100 years. I don't know about you, but I doubt the accuracy of a temperature and CO2 level reading from around the turn of the century and older. They are using figures also from even older than that, 19th century and earlier, to justify their claims. Ladies and Gentlemen, the real fact is, these “scientists” do not actually have these figures. This “factual data” has been manufactured in some way. It has been either randomly made up or hypothesized through math. And guess what, we can't prove them wrong unless we have a time machine. The fact is, we don't know. These “scientists” are only guessing which is why they are not in agreement.
I am all for finding newer, better and more efficient sources of energy. I am not for the fat cats who are holding back the technology to do so, and I am not for the scare tactic being used to get people to try to change.
16 December 2009
at 10:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LoveThsLife (Anonymous) says…
I just like a good debate, rather than have it one sided. I am glad those e-mails got hacked. I think it has allowed people to think about the information they are receiving…regardless of who is right.
Are we doing damage to the environment? Yes.
Is climate change real and man made? Not sure…however I still think it is a good idea to find more fuel efficient ways of doing things.
16 December 2009
at 10:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“I find it interesting that when those in the scientific community who support the man-made global warming theory are confronted by data which contradict their conclusion (reference 1998)”
Ah, but when such “data” is scrutinized, it turns out that the conclusion hasn't been contradicted at all. But you'll keep pretending that it has.
16 December 2009
at 10:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jhwk2008 (Anonymous) says…
Wow, Mr. Gerhard picks the data he uses very, very carefully.
8. “Global temperature peaked in 1998 on the current 60-80 year cycle, and has been episodically declining ever since. This cooling absolutely falsifies claims that human carbon dioxide emissions are a controlling factor in Earth temperature.”
1998 is the warmest on record, but only if one uses Hadley Centre data. Deniers use Hadley Centre data because it excludes temperature data from the Arctic Ocean, the place on Earth that has been warming fastest. But if one uses NASA data, 2005 is the warmest on record. Why doesn't Mr. Gerhard mention that?
Furthermore, statisticians who reviewed satellite temperature data “found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set.”
“Saying there's a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers.”
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/09…
16 December 2009
at 10:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“So you are backing away from your previous statements and making a new argument. You could have simply admitted you were wrong, and then I would be happy to move on to your next argument. ”
Not at all. I'd say nice try, but it wasn't all that nice.
16 December 2009
at 10:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jhwk2008 (Anonymous) says…
“The 2009 minimum Arctic ice extent was significantly larger than the previous two years. The 2009 Antarctic maximum ice extent was significantly above the 30-year average. There are only 30 years of records.”
Why does Mr. Gerhard start with 2007? Because the Arctic ice cap dwindled to a record-low minimum extent of 4.3 million square kilometers (1.7 million square miles) in September 2007? Why doesn't he start with 2005 or 2006?
“The melting in 2008 and 2009 was not as extensive, but still ranked as the second- and third-greatest decreases on record.”
See how he chooses the warmest year on record, but not according to NASA, and claims the earth is cooling? Or chooses the year with the record-low Arctic ice and claims the ice is growing?
That's like me looking at 10 game stretch during the MLB season and concluding that the Royals (or Blue Jays), who went 8-2 during that stretch, were a better team than the Yankees, who went 6-4.
Mr. Gerhard just concluded that the Royals were better than the World Series Champions.
16 December 2009
at 10:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cg22165 (Anonymous) says…
Follow-up to LesBlevins.
Lee makes no mention that relative concentration of water vapor decreases with altitude (closely related to temperature) and CO2 is pretty uniform. The density of the air decreases with altitude in a non-linear manner, and these relationships affect the effect that CO2 has. And, on an absolute scale, the earth's mean temperature is about 300 K; so, thinking that doubling CO2 only changes that only a little is pretty close. Expecting a 1% change, with feedbacks included, comes out to about 3 degrees C, which is about the middle of the expected change.
And what the heck does this mean?
“Effects of temperature change are absolutely independent of the cause of the temperature change.”
What? This is the same as saying that changing the surface albedo of millions of square miles of the surface from 90% reflective to 90% absorbent has absolutely no effect. That's just nonsense.
As for hockey sticks, here, take a look at a picture of the results of 10 independent studies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:200…
Hmm, something unusual going on over there on the right or not?
16 December 2009
at 11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
remember_username (Anonymous) says…
Satirical - Do you believe that the global climate, on average, is warming? If so, do you believe the warming trend is at least partially a result of anthropogenic sources?
16 December 2009
at 11:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cg22165 (Anonymous) says…
georgeofwesternkansas (Anonymous) says…
How do you in fact make a carbon atom?
OK George, what the heck. You cook (fuse) hydrogen in a star to form helium, and cook helium to produce carbon. More details readily available via a web search or a classroom near you.
I believe today's topic relates to leveraging the high chemical potential energy of carbon-based fossil fuels, normally found underground and sequestered from our biosphere, to supply energy for our industrial society and in the process releasing CO2, of lower chemical potential energy, into the biosphere, and the effects that might have on the biosphere. I'm not sure how your question relates to today's topic.
16 December 2009
at 11:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…
Goodness gracious!! How do all the cutting-edge Lawrence scientists–-hundreds of them it seems (I assume employed) find the time to debate global warming on LJW on-line, an award-winning, provocative, educational, informative, entertaining and free on-line discussion forum?
It reminds me of the W years. There were literally scores of military analysts living right in l'il old Lawrence KS.
Wow!
Amazing!
16 December 2009
at 12:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cg22165 (Anonymous) says…
I'm having trouble reconciling these statements:
“Mar 30, 2009…Arctic sea ice extent reached its maximum extent for the year, marking the beginning of the melt season. This year’s maximum was the fifth lowest in the satellite record…The maximum extent was 720,000 square kilometers (278,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average of 15.86 million square kilometers (6.12 million square miles), making it the fifth-lowest maximum extent in the satellite record. The six lowest maximum extents since 1979 have all occurred in the last six years (2004 to 2009).”
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/200…
“The 2009 Antarctic maximum ice extent was significantly above the 30-year average.”
Mr Gerhard, please site your source.
16 December 2009
at 12:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cg22165 (Anonymous) says…
oops
16 December 2009
at 12:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
The Goreacle caught out again.
“…I am a scientist, not a climatologist, so I don’t dabble in climatology. My speciality is the epidemiology of mosquito-borne diseases. As the film began, I knew Mr Gore would get to mosquitoes: they’re a favourite with climate-change activists. When he got to them, it was all I feared.
In his serious voice, Mr Gore presented a nifty animation, a band of little mosquitoes fluttering their way up the slopes of a snow-capped mountain, and he repeated the old line: Nairobi used to be ‘above the mosquito line, the limit at which mosquitoes can survive, but now…’ Those little mosquitoes kept climbing.
The truth? Nairobi means ‘the place of cool waters’ in the Masai language. The town grew up around a camp, set up in 1899 during the construction of a railway, the famous ‘Lunatic Express’. There certainly was water there — and mosquitoes. From the start, the place was plagued with malaria, so much so that a few years later doctors tried to have the whole town moved to a healthier place. By 1927, the disease had become such a plague in the ‘White Highlands’ that £40,000 (equivalent to about £350,000 today) was earmarked for malaria control. The authorities understood the root of the problem: forest clearance had created the perfect breeding places for mosquitoes. The disease was present as high as 2,500m above sea level; the mosquitoes were observed at 3,000m. And Nairobi? 1,680m….”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all…
16 December 2009
at 12:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cg22165 (Anonymous) says…
Yeap, sea ice extent in _Antarctica_ is increasing.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/P…
Mr. Gerhard might be implying that this means the globe is not getting warmer. Factors of salinity and density come into play and make it difficult to explain in this forum. However, if Gerhard is implying that the increase in ice means that the temperature in Antarctica is getting colder, and further, that somehow this offsets the warming observed globally, well, it's another one of his true, but misleading statements. A statement that Antarctic is getting colder is incompatible with the observed melting events working their way southward.
16 December 2009
at 12:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jacob123 (Anonymous) says…
Hey! I found a carbon molecule where do I turn it in?
16 December 2009
at 1:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
“So your logic is…any scientist that chooses a field of work wherein s/he gets paid well, must have became a scientist only for the money…and therefore isn’t really a scientist….and their observations are necessarily false?”
Come on now, Satirical, after all this time you should know that according to boohoozo, *anyone* that makes money can't be trusted.
16 December 2009
at 1:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BigPrune (Anonymous) says…
Thank God for Lee Gerhard. His voice of reason is refreshing.
Why do liberals always have a convoluted way of thinking? Is it the drugs they want legalized? Is it the congested apartment buildings they want everyone to live in? Is it their no growth = smart growth mentality? Is it their taxpayer subsidized bus system (with bike racks on front) that nobody but themselves ride so they can save the earth at 5 mpg with dirty diesel? Is it all the taxpayer subsidized bicycle paths that lay about the city that very few people use - with the liberals riding in the street next to the bike path anyway? Is it their only a good business is a government run business attitude?
Utopia to them is no running water, no electricity, no automobile, and vegan only dining with a chamber pot in every bedroom (a much needed necessity).
16 December 2009
at 1:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ksfbcoach (Anonymous) says…
If this was a scientist coming out and supporting Al Gore's theory of Global warming, the liberal tree huggers will talk about how smart he is and say “See! Told you so!”
But because it is a scientist coming out against big Al's theory, then they (even though they aren't scientists, just members of the cult of personality) they say “He's crazy!”
16 December 2009
at 1:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
Well, there's certainly no arguing with the “logic” of the last two posts.
16 December 2009
at 2:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jacob123 (Anonymous) says…
GCC and the carbon tax is Europe’s last ditch effort to revive colonialism and remain relevant in a global market where they cannot compete. Don’t trust the Europeans. How many times have we learned this lesson?
16 December 2009
at 2:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
melott (Anonymous) says…
Actually, local bikers really irritate me, and I have a Chevy Tahoe.
I also love red meat. But I have to fulfill your stereotypes, so I'll tell you that I mostly eat buffalo, and keep the SUV parked and walk to work.
16 December 2009
at 4:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
Since Western technology is destroying the world (according some folks) we should prevent Third World nations from using electricity & internal combustion engines & the other tools of the white devils.
Save them in spite of themselves.
We could do it for the children!
16 December 2009
at 4:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…
“…in every bedroom (a much needed necessity).” -BigPrune
I have to disagree BP, I don't think the location matters.
16 December 2009
at 4:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blue73harley (Anonymous) says…
ksfbcoach (Anonymous) says…
If this was a scientist coming out and supporting Al Gore's theory of Global warming, the liberal tree huggers will talk about how smart he is and say “See! Told you so!”
But because it is a scientist coming out against big Al's theory, then they (even though they aren't scientists, just members of the cult of personality) they say “He's crazy!”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
After reading all the comments with name-calling, I would have to agree.
And I am sure Melott meant “cyclists” not “bikers”. Oh, how I hate to irritate people (except perhaps for my good friend Bozo).
16 December 2009
at 4:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
“Your statement has shown that you clearly are not prejudicial against these industries, so I will believe you, instead of the biased Mr. Gerhard…”
Satirical for the win….
16 December 2009
at 4:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“we should prevent Third World nations from using electricity & internal combustion engines & the other tools”
While we all know you really couldn't care less about the children, probably not even your own, snap, this really is the major obstacle to reducing or reversing global warming. Folks in the US use 40-50 times as much energy and other resources as billions of folks elsewhere do. It would take several extra planets' worth of resources for everyone to be as gluttonous as you are. Even if global warming were a myth, they're going to want theirs, and what's theirs will very likely be what used to be ours.
16 December 2009
at 5:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…
“Folks in the US use 40-50 times as much energy and other resources as billions of folks elsewhere do.” -bozo
You *ARE* a member of “folks in the US”, no?
Quit your clowning around!
16 December 2009
at 5:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…
“…and what's theirs will very likely be what used to be ours.”
The happiest day of bozo's life.
16 December 2009
at 6:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Pilgrim2 (Anonymous) says…
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“I would very much like to know why you believe Mr Gerhard’s resume makes him biased.”
Isn't it obvious? For all the crap that's spewed about climate scientists doing climate research strictly for the money, if you're going to go into science for the money, Gerhard's field is a much better route to take.
******************************************
Except one of your fellow Apocalypse Cult acolytes has already lifted that veil, boohoozo.
============================
anon1958 (Anonymous) says…
Scientists are ultra-competitive with one another because it is a common behavior of people that want to be scientists and because there are more scientists than there are funds to support them. Scientists will attack the ideas of competing scientists with great enthusiasm and no remorse.
*****************************************
Thanks for debunking the altruistic motives with which others on this forum have anointed the scientific community. Your admission that it IS all about the money is revealing and refreshing. It also reveals all the motivation necessary to follow the marketing strategy of Stephen Schneider; to spin the data, fearmonger, and censor dissenters. Yes, thanks for the honesty (this time).
16 December 2009
at 6:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Pilgrim2 (Anonymous) says…
melott (Anonymous) says…
Secondarily, it shows that he has not worked much if any on climate change…
***************************************
Which puts you two in the same boat, since you admitted up front you don't know anything about it, either.
Pot, meet Kettle.
16 December 2009
at 6:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
Well, considering that your core belief is that “Greed is Good,” I can only surmise that you just convinced yourself of the legitimacy of the science behind the theories of global warming and human-induced climate change, Pil.
You go girl!!!
16 December 2009
at 7:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…
Mercy sakes! The in-fighting amongst Dems has reached critical mass over ObamaCare, what in the wide world of sports will it look like if AlGoreCare gets waxed? WOW!!
16 December 2009
at 7:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
For someone who doesn't know me at all,, bozo sure pretends he knows a lot about me.
More delusional behavior from the kool-aid drinkers.
How's that hopenchange working out for you?
16 December 2009
at 8:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“How's that hopenchange working out for you?”
Things are probably better than if McCain had won, but I didn't vote for either of them.
But at least if McCain had won, Republicans would have been blamed for the failure of Republican policies. In reaction to the impending failures of Obama's primarily Republican-lite performance, voters in 2010 may jump out of the pan, and into the fire.
16 December 2009
at 8:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…
I think bozo should start sending a personal check to a world nation every month and write in the memo section: “For Global Warming” . It would make him feel better.
16 December 2009
at 8:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cg22165 (Anonymous) says…
Irony.
Gerhard's presentation of what is “known” has been called into question by what amounts to no more than a freshman year level of understanding science courses. There have been no refutations of these debunks based on an understanding of the physical world. Right here in this article are a number of half-truths that can be readily verified as such; yet, at the same time, he complains of “The whistleblower release of e-mails and files from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University has demonstrated scientific malfeasance and a sickening violation of scientific ethics.”
The statement itself is yet another example of misleading presupositions. A) This has been claimed, but not verified. B) Who said it was a whistleblower? And, whistleblower is a term that implies something was systemically wrong in the first place, and going back to A, that has not been established.
16 December 2009
at 8:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
This columnist, Lee C. Gerhard, is provides precious few “facts” in his column. One “opinion” he states is that 1934 was the warmest year during this century.
I'm curious. How did he determine that?
What I would like to know is what data or interpretation of data Lee C. Gerhard refers to when he makes a statement like that? Since he is a “reviewer” of IPCC reports, I'm curious as to what “a reviewer” is in his eyes. Does he mean he read the reports or does it mean he was tasked with peer review on the reports?
Big difference.
I can state that I'm “a reviewer” of this thread just by reading it.
Is Dr. Gerhard (geology) one of those non-climatology persons who signed the petition disagreeing with the findings of the IPCC? A group which included very few climatologists?
“I have been a reviewer of the last two IPCC reports, one of the several thousand scientists who purportedly are supporters of the IPCC view that humans control global temperature. Nothing could be further from the truth.” — Lee C. Gerhard
Dr. Gerhard is 180 degrees from NASA and the NCDC data sets. For what reason, other than personal opinion? I'd like to hear about the hard data.
I'm betting the hard data supporting his position isn't there. You know how I know?
If it was, he'd be famous!! Such a paper would make this East Anglia email scandal look like someone stole a coke off of your desk at work. Al Gore would truly be in the trash.
No data? Then the opinions don't mean anything. A scientist would know that.
16 December 2009
at 8:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
Yep, cg22165, as with most deniers, Gerhard's forte isn't a command of facts or logic, but rather, in the spirit of the season, in spinning like a dreidel.
16 December 2009
at 8:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“One “opinion” he states is that 1934 was the warmest year during this century.”
And even if it's more than just opinion, it was temperature data for N. America only, and not the entire world, which makes it mostly irrelevant in a discussion of global warming.
16 December 2009
at 9:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
“The data processing flaw did not alter the ordering of the warmest years on record and the global ranks were unaffected. In the contiguous 48 states, the statistical tie among 1934, 1998 and 2005 as the warmest year(s) was unchanged. In the current analysis, in the flawed analysis, and in the published GISS analysis, 1934 is the warmest year in the contiguous states (but not globally) by an amount (magnitude of the order of 0.01°C) that is an order of magnitude smaller than the certainty.” –— http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/feat…
Dr. Gerhard is directly contradicting NASA.
On what data, Dr. Gerhard? Tell us how NASA is “lying” to us. Tell us precisely how they “got it wrong”.
16 December 2009
at 10:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
“Effects of temperature change are absolutely independent of the cause of the temperature change.” –- Dr. Gerhard
(laughter)
Let's do some “science”.
Let's find a “cause of the temperature change”. A source of heat perhaps. How about the burner on your stovetop? That should do. A burner on a stovetop certainly “causes a temperature change”. Everyone can understand that.
Now let's find an “effect of temperature change”.
How about …. “boiling water”?
Now let's examine what Dr. Gerhard is saying.
Dr. Gerhard says that the “effects of temperature change” are absolute independent of the cause of the temperature change”.
So does this mean that the boiling water has nothing to do with the heat coming up from the burner? No connection?
That's what “independent” means, does it not? The water doesn't care what the burner is doing?
=============
To put in a “geologic” (read “oil company”) scenario, Dr. Gerhard is saying that if we burn hydrocarbons (heat source), then that burning is “independent” of the effect of the heat that is contributed to the atmosphere. That burning is “independent” of the hydrocarbons that are emitted in the combustion process. That burning is “independent” of the water vapor that goes up in the air because “something else” prompted that liquid to change state.
(laughter)
According to Dr. Gerhard, the effect of the “heat source” is like a broken vase and the “heat source” is not the cute kid who broke it.
Maybe it was the imaginary friend.
(laughter)
16 December 2009
at 10:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
barrypenders (Anonymous) says…
Are those rioters in Copenhagen “teabaggers”?
p-p, you give a compelling hypothesis. You have “bracer” your findings as interesting evidence.
stimulus, bracers, Posercare live unprecedented
Darwin bless you
16 December 2009
at 10:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blue73harley (Anonymous) says…
Porchie vs the Doc in a live debate would be worth payin' for.
(Hillarity ensues)
16 December 2009
at 11:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
“Dr. Gerhard says that the “effects of temperature change” are absolute independent of the cause of the temperature change”.
So does this mean that the boiling water has nothing to do with the heat coming up from the burner? No connection?
That's what “independent” means, does it not? The water doesn't care what the burner is doing?”
As usual your poor command of the English language has caused you to misread what someone has said. Your water and burner example is off. What he is saying is that the effect of the change is independent of the cause of the change, not that the effect is independent of the change itself. Hence you can boil water with an electric burner, a gas burner, a campfire etc. You don't get different reactions based on the cause of the temperature change. As long as the tempurature changes the water will boil, regardless of the heat source. Hence if you find a pot of hot water and nothing else, you cannot say that it is proof that it was heated on a wood-fired stove any more than it was heated in a microwave.
Applying it to global warming, just because a glacier melted doesn't prove anything since the effects are independent of the causes. It could be deforestation, increased solar activity or who knows. One effect can have multiple different causes, so effects, in and of themselves, are not proof of AGW.
17 December 2009
at 7:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bkgarner (Brent Garner) says…
Mr. Melott, if Mr. Gerhard's bio makes him biased perhaps we should ask what your bio and background would reveal regarding your bias.
When I learned about the scientific method in school one of the requirements was that others could take your theory, your data, your methods and duplicate the results. I note, interestingly, that the East Anglia crowd has admitted that they have discarded their original data which makes verification by others impossible, yet we are expected to believe their results. Similarly, NASA has refused to release their data for review. A lawsuit is not in progress attempting to force that release when NASA refused to comply with a FOIA request for over 3 years. These actions by both East Anglia and NASA do not go very far in engendering trust and confidence in either themselves or their conclusions.
17 December 2009
at 7:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LarryNative (Anonymous) says…
No matter what evidence is brought forward, all the “save the world” ninny's can not admit they got behind and supported a total sham. Everything was a lie, go on with your lives.
17 December 2009
at 8:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TomPaine (Anonymous) says…
Gerhard's “I'm a scientist, so lissen to me” article is a mess. Just one example: Can anybody here explain the difference between his third and fourth bullet points? Read them repeatedly and you will notice they say essentially the same vague thing, with the wording shuffled to look like separate remarks. Looks like freshman writing assignment padding. The whole piece is shot through with vague and unreferenced assertions, weasly words, irrelevant background facts (like the “water vapor is a nifty greenhouse gas” head fake). The man is a petroleum geologist (oil sniffer, retired) who has reviewed the climate science of the IPCC (whatever “reviewed” means). Real scientists are loathe to wade into areas outside their area of current expertise and training, especially when they are retired and out of the swim in general. Real scientists, and commentators of every kind, practice full disclosure of any associations or commitments that might give even the appearance of a conflict of interest. These are matters of professional decorum and integrity. Gerhard makes a feint at intellectual, impartial inquiry, then runs over it with his juggernaut of incoherent, unreferenced, murky and (from his other public commentary found on the web) politically biased propaganda points. There is no coherent scientific argument here — just a bunch of disconnected pseudo-facts and meaningless assertions. And that final garbled sentence is a complete head-spinning non sequitur of rare absurdity. Still waiting for anything by a working climatologist, biologist in the field watching changing migrations, or anyone with a direct involvement in this work to appear in the Journal-World. What are the odds? With the scientifically illiterate editorship at the helm there, no such luck likely.
17 December 2009
at 8:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LarryNative (Anonymous) says…
Climate Change Advocates is the new faith based religion.
17 December 2009
at 8:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
You've got that mantra well memorized, larry. Just keeping repeating that loudly, over and over, and you'll never have to hear anything that's too difficult for you to understand.
Bliss out, dude.
17 December 2009
at 9:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…
I like TomPaine's post. That's about the most hypocritical I think a person can be in that amount of words. Bravo.
17 December 2009
at 9:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
Well, LO, at least you weren't long-winded in admitting that you have no constructive rejoinder to his post.
17 December 2009
at 9:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cg22165 (Anonymous) says…
bkgarner (Brent Garner) says…
… I note, interestingly, that the East Anglia crowd has admitted that they have discarded their original data which makes verification by others impossible, yet we are expected to believe their results. Similarly, NASA has refused to release their data for review.
Brent, what would you call this?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/…
17 December 2009
at 9:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says…
Jacob123 (Anonymous) says…
“Hey! I found a carbon molecule where do I turn it in?”
You should see a doctor to have that removed. They can safely dispose of it.
17 December 2009
at 9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
Really, flock, can't you think of something less drastic for poor jacob than the complete removal of the brain?
17 December 2009
at 10:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Olympics (Anonymous) says…
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/…
97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming
17 December 2009
at 10:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
Liberty_One.
Without “the cause” there can be no “effect”. Where there is “effect”, there's “a cause” somewhere.
You're defending Dr. Gerhard's statement that the effects are not connected to their causes.
If you think about it linguistically, Dr. Gerhard acknowledges that the effect has a cause. He just doesn't want to connect the two. He made a contradictory statement. If “the effect” was truly independent of the cause, then “the cause” wouldn't be called “the cause”, now would it?
I would like to see his hard data demonstrating that burning hydrocarbons on a grand scale, all over the world, doesn't “heat things up”. He's a retired geology professor. He should be able to back up his statements “with facts”, shouldn't he?
====
Dr. Gerhard says:
“Temperature change correlation with carbon dioxide levels is not statistically significant.
There are no data that definitively relate carbon dioxide levels to temperature changes.” – Dr. Gerhard
I can see the correlation “upon inspection” (that's researcher language for “It's obvious at a glance”) here: http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/g…
17 December 2009
at 10:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
bkgarner,
Here's NASA's data:
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/c…
17 December 2009
at 10:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
barrypenders,
“Are those rioters in Copenhagen “teabaggers”?” – barrypenders
No, clearly not. Teabaggers, in America, are a fringe demographic that desires to overthrow our current government in much the same way the people in colonial America overthrew the British.
They acquired their name from the Boston Tea Party, a revolt against the tea tax. They were embarrassed to discover that their name also refers to a certain practice in the homosexual community. I believe the correct nomenclature is “Tea Party” now to avoid that embarrassment. I'm not surprised to see you be so out of touch or use a potentially embarrassing term for a demographic you are closely aligned with.
Those protesting in Copenhagen are not presenting findings which refute the phenomenon of anthropogenic global warming. That would be a far more effective activity, if they could achieve it.
====
“p-p, you give a compelling hypothesis. You have “bracer” your findings as interesting evidence.” –- barrypenders
I made no “hypothesis” nor provided any “findings” in that post other than the link to NASA's findings.
I provided an analogy.
You used a noun “bracer” as a verb. I suggest you review your grammar, barrypender. You don't do “the Movement” much good if you can't express yourself competently.
17 December 2009
at 10:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Left_handed (Anonymous) says…
georgeofwesternkansas,
The whole climate change religion is based on dubious 'science' to begin with. The greenhouse effect is caused when solar heating causes air to warm, and the heat is trapped because the greenhouse structure prevents heat transfer by convection. The so-called greenhouse gases actually transfer heat to the surrounding atmosphere by convection, which is not the 'greenhouse effect'.
The constant yapping about 'carbon' is another example of just how technically bereft the whole movement is. The supposed culprit is 'carbon dioxide', which is not the same as 'carbon', which exists primarily in two allotrophic forms, graphite and diamond.
In short, don't expect anything resembling cogent science from a worshipper at the altar of 'Climate Change'.
17 December 2009
at 11:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…
bozo, I learned from watching you.
17 December 2009
at 11:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jacob123 (Anonymous) says…
We might have to start elected climate scientists if they are going to be left wing political lap dogs.
17 December 2009
at 11:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
“You're defending Dr. Gerhard's statement that the effects are not connected to their causes.”
That's not his statement. If A is caused by B, and B is caused by C, the presence of A does not prove C because B could also be caused by D. It's not that the effects are not connected to the causes, it's that they are independent of their causes. 'Independent' and 'not connected' are not synonymous.
17 December 2009
at 11:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
Left-handed,
The greenhouse effect is not limited to the original analogy. You knew that, didn't you?
Carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) acts as “the glass” in the atmosphere, preventing heat from going back into space. You are correct in saying that CO2 transfer heat back into the atmosphere but you are wrong in saying that such heat transfer isn't part of the entire “greenhouse gas” effect.
As a matter of fact, it is this heat transfer from atmospheric CO2 back into the atmosphere which is one of the vectors for the current warming we are experiencing now.
17 December 2009
at 11:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
Liberty_One,
For one, the A->B->C connection is not what Dr. Gerhard stated.
For two, Dr. Gerhard did not provide any “facts” that show any vectors for C from a Bprime2 or Bprime3 as opposed to simple “B”.
Thirdly, Dr. Gerhard dismisses C altogether. Read his column thoroughly. Not only does Dr. Gerhard dismiss anthropogenic global warming, he dismisses that the planet is currently warming.
17 December 2009
at 12:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
JSpizias (Anonymous) says…
Want some facts about climate change rather than propaganda. See:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
http://climateaudit.org/
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/
Check our system for monitoring surface T in the US.
www.surfacestations.org
The majority of the stations have possible measurement errors equal to or greater than 2 degrees Centigrade or 3.6 degrees F. Yet they report temperatures to a tenth of a degree Farenheit!
Want some actual science? See Stainforth's comments about climate prediction:
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.or…
“Confidence, uncertainty and decision-support relevance in climate predictions
Stainforth et al. Proc. Royal Soc.
…the problem is one of extrapolation. It is therefore inappropriate to apply any of the currently available generic techniques which utilize observations to calibrate or weight models to produce forecast probabilities for the real world. To do so is misleading to the users of climate science in wider society”…
The relationship between earth temperature and CO2 levels by Stott et al. 2007
Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming
Lowell Stott,1* Axel Timmermann,2 Robert Thunell3
Science vol 318 pp435-438
“Deep-sea temperatures warmed by ~2°C between 19 and 17 thousand years before the present (ky B.P.), leading the rise in atmospheric CO2 and tropical–surface-ocean warming by ~1000 years. The cause of this deglacial deep-water warming does not lie within the tropics, nor can its early onset between 19 and 17 ky B.P. be attributed to CO2 forcing. Increasing austral-spring insolation combined with sea-ice albedo feedbacks appear to be the key factors responsible for this warming.”
I have just finished reading Nassim Talib's book (The Black Swan) which I think should be required reading for climate scientists, especially the chapter on the Scandal of Prediction. I have also just read Richard Feynman's book, The Meaning of It All, a series of 3 lectures given at U. Washington in 1963. The first two lectures are The Uncertainty of Science and The Uncertainty of Values. Quoting from lecture 1, page 23 “All scientific knowledge is uncertain. This experience with doubt and uncertainty is important. I believe this is of very great value, and one that extends beyond the sciences. I believe that to solve any problem that has never been solved before, you have to leave the door to the unknown ajar. You have to permit the possibility that you do not have it exactly right. Otherwise, if you have made up your mind already, you might not solve it.”
See also Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit.
http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/W/Jonatha…
So much for “scientific consensus” about anything.
17 December 2009
at 12:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
JSpizias,
Fine post on the logical fallacy of “If there is any uncertainty, then the entire body of knowledge should be thrown out.”
(laughter)
“So much for “scientific consensus” about anything.” –JSpizias
I know there is variability in measurement. I know there are no “exact” answers. The speed of light is an “average” measurement. That is not adequate for me to “go get high” because “it's all meaningless anyway”.
There is enough “variable” data on the books for me to know something's going on and there is enough of a correlation between the beginning of the Industrial Age and the current rise in temperature for me to believe we should do something to slow it down.
17 December 2009
at 12:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
JSpizias,
And the “fact” sites you listed *are* propaganda sites….
(laughter)
Here are some “fact” sites,…..places where you can get “real” data:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/feat…
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/bri…
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/c…
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/g…
17 December 2009
at 12:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
“For one, the A->B->C connection is not what Dr. Gerhard stated.”
A = the effects of temperature change
B = temperature change
C = the cause of the temperature change
“Thirdly, Dr. Gerhard dismisses C altogether.”
Perhaps so, but I am not defending him on that point.
17 December 2009
at 1:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
How warm is the world getting?
“Dec. 17 (Bloomberg) — World leaders flying into Copenhagen today to discuss a solution to global warming will first face freezing weather as a blizzard dumped 10 centimeters (4 inches) of snow on the Danish capital overnight.
“Temperatures will stay low at least the next three days,” Henning Gisseloe, an official at Denmark’s Meteorological Institute, said today by telephone, forecasting more snow in coming days. “There’s a good chance of a white Christmas.” “
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pi…
(laughter)
17 December 2009
at 1:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
snap_pop_no_crackle,
At some point in their development, children believe that things have literally gone out of existence if they are removed from sight.
They grow out of it, of course. Most of them do.
(laughter)
17 December 2009
at 1:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
Liberty_One,
Look at your last post again. You screwed up your presentation. Do over.
There is no difference between the temperature change and the effect of the temperature change. A temperature change is measured by the effect on something. The effect tells us that a change is going on.
Analogous to noting that the change in the movement of a celestial body can tell us that something that we can't detect is out there, waiting to be discovered.
17 December 2009
at 1:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says…
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“Really, flock, can't you think of something less drastic for poor jacob than the complete removal of the brain?”
It never got any use anyway and has atrophied beyond rehabilitation, leaving any possibility of ever being capable of reasoning very slim.
17 December 2009
at 1:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
“A temperature change is measured by the effect on something.”
What exactly do you think he means by “Effects of temperature change”? I think you are confused on this point. The effects he is talking about are things like melting glaciers and increased number of hurricanes. You don't measure the temperature by counting the number of hurricanes in a year.
17 December 2009
at 2:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
From James Delingpole, from Rionovosta, via the Ria Novosti agency, posted on Icecap. (Hat Tip: Richard North)
“Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.
On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.
What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock.”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jam…
17 December 2009
at 2:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
Liberty_One,
You're confused. You need to take a science class.
You see, we *could* measure temperature rise by the number of hurricanes each year. It would be very imprecise and we'd have to wait a long time for “an answer” but it is possible.
Heat makes molecules move around faster. The phenomenon of molecules moving around faster is what we call “heat”. Whatever makes molecules move around in space faster is “heat”. You can't perceive “heat” outside of it's effect.
We can't directly measure molecules running around faster because that would be very expensive and be limited to that particular point in space. In other words, the temperature at the base of a boiling pot of water differs significantly from the temperature at the top. The greater precision we have in one area of measurement, the less we have in others. See Heisenberg.
It's how precisely you want to measure “the temperature”.
Science is observing phenomenon and correlating them together. The connection between them is what we are interested in.
What Dr. Gerhard stated was that we have one phenomenon and the phenomenon that is “effected” by the cause is independent of the cause. That's nonsense. If the effect is “independent” of the cause, then it isn't an effect of the cause.
Where you are hung up is that you think that there is some middleman between the cause and effect. There isn't. There is a chain of causality but because there is a chain doesn't mean that the final effect is “independent” of earlier steps. Take out the earlier steps and the final effect does not come into being.
Do you understand?
17 December 2009
at 3:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LarryNative (Anonymous) says…
Drink from Al Gore's vat of green punch……..drrrrrrink and save the world. Complain as much as possible while drrrrrrinking the punch……….do nothing but drink it up.
17 December 2009
at 3:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
You think Dear Leader is going all the way to Copenhagen to come back empty-handed a second time this year? Imagine the carbon footprint he's creating.
17 December 2009
at 3:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
LarryNative,
Gee, if global warming was all some delusion served up from (Academy Award winner, Nobel Peace Prize winner, Vice-President of the United States for eight years) Al Gore's home brew apparatus, you should be able to show us “the truth” and make us all look silly.
Instead you're nothing but ignorant conservative guy on a blog. Tons of you guys around. You're interchangeable.
17 December 2009
at 4:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
JSpizias (Anonymous) says…
Porch_Person,
I am sure a person with your demonstrated scientific knowledge knows how to do a linear regression analysis (average T versus year for the 4 seasons). Go to the following NOAA site and analyze the data for the average Kansas City temperature (as measured at the Pleasant Hill USHCN site) since 1889 for the four seasons:
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/eax//localcli…
Spring Rankings by Temperature
Summer Rankings by Temperature
Fall Rankings by Temperature
Winter Rankings by Temperature
Download the data and do a linear regression of the measured average T versus year observed.
What you will find is that there has been no statistically significant change in temperature for over 100 years as measured by r square. The same is true for the average of the state of South Carolina. It is too bad we can't display graphs on this site or I could save you some work. But now you can see for yourself.
17 December 2009
at 4:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
I'm just curious, jspizias, how many such linear regressions have you done for various reporting stations around the world?
17 December 2009
at 4:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cg22165 (Anonymous) says…
JSpizias.
I'll second what JABOTB said, but I'm also wondering why you think a linear test is appropriate for testing the fit of data to a curve.
17 December 2009
at 5:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
JSpizias,
True. There is no change in the last hundred years in Kansas City.
You've picked two localities on roughly the same latitude of the planet in the same hemisphere. Care to go further?
Come up with more of these results and I'm listening.
This is precisely what global warming critics *should* be doing instead of trying to think up new derogatory names for Al Gore.
17 December 2009
at 5:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
cg22165,
I think I can answer that. It's easy. There's a billion ways you can “massage the data”.
17 December 2009
at 5:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
JSpizias (Anonymous) says…
Just Another Bozo on the Bus,
I haven't analyzed any outside the US. But what I have seen and read convinces me that the US data, which is probably the best in the world, has numerous problems such as urban heat island effects, etc. So in my opinion, we lack, what I as a scientist, consider good data, even for the US.
Look at the data from the site below and see what quality of data we have from the US HCN stations. There is a nice graph of the distributions of the stations rated according to NOAA criteria at:
www.surfacestations.org
And then look at what happened with the East Anglia data where proxy data is eliminated apparently because they wished to “hide the decline”. Here is another reason why I question current dogma.
http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/16/ie…
For the record, I think man is altering the earth's environment through a variety of actions, that unknown or poorly known factors such as oceanic circulation play crucial roles, as does natural climate variability. I do not believe that the data show CO2 is the predominant driver of any anthropogenic climate change that may be occurring. I think what transpires in climate science is very different from the hard science in which I spent my career. Read the papers I previously cited by Stainforth and Stott. Von Storch found in a survey several years ago that a majority of climate scientists do not think climate can be predicted even 10 years in advance, much less 100 years. I think what we are seeing with climate is similar to similar events that occurred in the early 20th century with eugenics and Lysenkoism.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com…
17 December 2009
at 5:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LarryNative (Anonymous) says…
Good boy Porch. Keep drinking, good boy.
17 December 2009
at 5:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
LarryNative, we're having a serious discussion here. Take the ignorant “I hate everything Democratic - Gee, isn't Sarah Palin hawt” roadshow somewhere else.
17 December 2009
at 6:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
This is from an interesting exchange between Bart Verheggen and Roger Peilke, with regard to Peilke's behavior towards climate scientists.
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.c…
“9. In their political enthusiasm, some leading scientists have behaved badly. (Pielke)
Without specifics, this is impossible to answer, and is bound to lead to even more misunderstanding. I could try reading your mind of course. You probably have some of your critics in mind, notably some RealClimate scientists as well as Hansen, who you have criticized. I find this very problematic. In most instances that I followed (involving Gavin Schmidt, Michael Tobis, Eric Steig, Hansen, Briffa at different occasions), I have found your and others’ criticisms off base, besides the point, largely irrelevant to the bigger picture and having the smell of a smear campaign (science-bashing). As I commented regarding the latest McIntyre affair (see my review here): “A lot of scientists are getting understandably frustrated with self-proclaimed auditors of science (and their supporters) who cast doubt about a whole scientific field by blowing minor flaws out of proportion and insinuate accusations of scientific misconduct”. Against this backdrop of a lot of people ready to embrace any little nitpicked criticism as if it overthrows the whole scientific consensus, and ignore the mountain of evidence in favour of this consensus, I can perfectly well understand that a lot of scientists (and their supporters) are getting frustrated having to deal with this behavior and (mostly) fake arguments. In the grand scheme of things, the big problem as I see it is the contempt of science and its practitioners by a sizeable segment of the general public and some high profile bloggers; if a scientist responds to faux criticism in a frustrated tone, I find that a minor flaw in comparison. Granted, they (climate scientists) are your subject of study, so you naturally focus on their behaviour, but at the same time, please consider the context in which they operate, as well as the main message they are trying to convey. In light of this, your claim that “bad behavior by the folks at Real Climate does more to hurt the cause for action than the political actions of the skeptics” is preposterous. William Connolley brought up Fred Singer as the most obvious example.”
17 December 2009
at 6:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LarryNative (Anonymous) says…
Porch,
I'm not anti demo at all. I like how everyone is throwing around data that they did not collect, they have no idea where it came from or if the sorce is even valid. You read something by some scientist and all of the sudden it is factual. Scientist, as we know, lie like everyone else.
I live in the United States, more specifically Kansas. None of the data you all keep spouting about temps rising applies to our country or our state. There has not been a record setting temp in the US since the mid 90's and most were set several decades ago. The ave hi temp was two decades ago. I do not care what BS you want to spout. How can anyone claim that we are in some death spiral when the ave temps have been lower in the last 20 years? Don't give me the polar ice crap because none of us were there and we all have numbers from both sides stating their own line of crap. I don't trust anyones data, just what I have lived. The conditions I live in are not changing.
17 December 2009
at 6:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
LarryNative,
(laughter)
Ok, let me get this straight…..
You don't trust either side's data (the anti-global warming side has *no* data) but you're real sure that the global warming people (the people who *are* collecting data) are all uncritical acolytes of Al Gore, who occupies some sort of Timothy Leary role in your “I'm neutral, I'm from Kansas” BS stance.
(laughter)
If it ain't what you're looking at out your back window, it doesn't exist.
God bless ya!!
(laughter)
17 December 2009
at 6:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LarryNative (Anonymous) says…
Yes Porch, I live by what I see and do, not blindly follow others. Anti has no data………..cooling temps maybe?
17 December 2009
at 6:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MaxLayman (Anonymous) says…
With all the emphasis on CO2, would I be off topic if I brought up the Maunder Minimum?
I'm trying to help my grandson on his Climategate project.
Seems to me that there is more evidence than CO2 levels, and manmade causes for climate changes?
Sunspots, tree rings, and maybe a Stradivarius thrown in there.
I consider myself a little more qualified than Algore, and twice as observant over the last 67 years of my life. Just say'n…
17 December 2009
at 6:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
And let me guess, everything you know about “Climategate” is from skeptics on Fox News, etc, right, max?
17 December 2009
at 6:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LarryNative (Anonymous) says…
Max,
Watch out. Apparently actual personal experience does not qualify you for anything. You have to read a blog about some scientist who is paid by someone through a grant to do research in a foreign country who needs to supply the data the company wants or the funding is cut. Once you read his findings, then you are qualified by regurgitating those findings.
17 December 2009
at 6:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
Not to impinge on your manhood there, LarryNative, but I have done research and I know some of the subtleties involved. If you don't know the subtleties or if the conversation is over your head, try to avoid making blanket statements about areas you're ignorant in.
Doesn't mean we don't love you if you don't know your science. It just means we'd rather not listen to how corrupt us scientists are when you don't have a clue of what you're talking about.
17 December 2009
at 6:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MaxLayman (Anonymous) says…
Larry,
Thank you for the welcome. The environment that I retired from doesn't suffer fools, gladly.
When you are traveling Mach 1.92 at 40,000', you don't want to sneeze.
Bozo, I learned in Earth Science (9th grade, circa 1957) that there was a correlation between tree ring growth and sunspot activity. I was just wondering if any of you scientists have done an ANOVA, or some other study to confirm, or dispute that. No need to get nasty.
Just the facts man, just the facts…
17 December 2009
at 6:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LarryNative (Anonymous) says…
It's just as easy to say Al Gore pro's are on CNN.
I am most likely older then a couple of you and like most people who have lived a full life don't believe everything we hear. For instance, how many of you voted for Obama because he was going to end the war? I know a lot people did, it was a major part of his campaign. Guess what? He lied to get elected. Are we still at war? Yes. Are we sending more troops? Yes. It's the same with second hand smoke. No one has ever died of second hand smoke. Pharma pays lobbyists to prove it, tobacco pays to disprove it. “Going Green” is big business. As T. Boone. It's all about money kids. Some day you will understand.
17 December 2009
at 6:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LarryNative (Anonymous) says…
Porch,
Why not discuss local climates? That is all I can really attest too. Instead you resort to name calling.
17 December 2009
at 6:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LarryNative (Anonymous) says…
Just to be up front. I am a business consultant. I do not have the scientific credentials you possess. Please explain to me, in laymens terms, how lowering temps in the US = global warming. Your turn Dr.
17 December 2009
at 6:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
LarryNative,
First, because someone lied to you in something else doesn't mean everything else is a lie.
Second, I *have* been discussing local climates. Review the thread.
Third, the only thing I've called you is “ignorant” and that's one you have tacitly acknowledged with regard to science.
Fourth, in reviewing the thread, you can see the substance that I've provided the reader is on point with the subject and the content is of the finest kind (nasa, ncdc, noaa). More than a little disingenuous to claim that the “Al Gore kool-aid drinker” is bringing less to the table than you are.
You're the one acting like a troll on this thread, not me.
17 December 2009
at 7:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MaxLayman (Anonymous) says…
Back in the 70's the climate experts said we were going to have an ice age. I retired from the Marine Corps in 1981, and passed up a job in Michigan to avoid the glaciers (well, I don't care for cold climates, after cold weather survival training in the mountains). Moved to Florida and now south Texas (God's country).
So, where is this global warming?
The Maunder Minimum coincided with the Little Ice Age, and I understand that the Thames River froze over in London. Anybody got any links to that information?
What caused the freeze? Any correlation to sun spot activity?
[This is the place to come for discussion on the facts, and climate change, isn't it?]
17 December 2009
at 7:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LarryNative (Anonymous) says…
So Porch, first google hit on your hero:
Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA's vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.” Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears. …
I have no idea who tells the truth.
17 December 2009
at 7:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LarryNative (Anonymous) says…
Also Porch, I went to your other reco site and glanced over the ave. temps in kansas. I noticed in the city by city historical data ave that almost every city that did not have data up to 2003, have a higher average temp. So, not being a scientist such as yourself, I would deduce that kansas on average was more hot in previous decades.
After reading back, I do skim usually, you seem to think I am a staunch Bush loving Republican. I am not. I am an indepedent. You, on the other hand, are a left wing nut job whose hatred for conservatives clouds your judgement. Try turning off CNN and actually go out and live your life instead of being lead around by your nose.
(laughter, haha, giggle giggle snort)
Wow, how do you type that all the time. It is so queer.
On that note, I'm going to bed.
17 December 2009
at 7:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
melott (Anonymous) says…
MaxLayman: This is an area of interest of mine. It seems that the little ice age coincided with a long period of low sunspot activity. It's still conjecture, but the cold climates may have been induced by either lower solar luminosity ormore cosmic rays. (When there is less solar activity we get hit by more cosmic rays from outside our solar system).
Many people think cosmic rays help create cloud cover which cools the climate. I think these ideas are reasonable. I also think that since we are coming onto a low point in an 80 year sunspot cycle, we may see some cooling effect in the coming decade. I mentioned this in my earlier column. However, it does not appear that this effect is nearly as powerful as the effect of greenhouse gases. My shoot-from-the-hip prediction is that we'll see a levelling off of warming for a decade, then it will start up again. But I wouldn't place strong odds that I am right about this levelling off.
Some people who are interested in the solar/cosmic ray idea try to explain everything. People can fall in love with one idea, and try to use it everywhere. For a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
The ice age thing came from Newsweek and other magazines. A few scientists had that idea. However, the consensus of the time was that they didn't know enough to make any reliable predictions. They listed a number of possibilities including ice ages and global warming. Sometimes the deniers will quote part of this in an attempt to pretend that the scientific community as a whole predicted an ice age.
I appreciate the opportunity to inject some substance into this name-calling.
17 December 2009
at 8:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
“That's nonsense. If the effect is “independent” of the cause, then it isn't an effect of the cause.
Do you understand?”
porch, I don't think you understand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependen…
Just because it is independent does not mean they are not connected. Please upgrade your vocabulary before you lecture anyone again.
Thank you.
17 December 2009
at 8:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
JSpizias (Anonymous) says…
Recently, a paper appeared in Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci about loss of glaciers. I wrote the following to the senior author.
“I saw a reference to your most recent PNAS paper (Glacier Loss on Kilimanjaro Continues Unabated). I read it with much interest as well as your National Academy Profile. In this profile it is noted regarding the loss of glacier ice: “This alarming trend has turned xxxxxxx into both a_ scientist _and an _advocate_ for the cause to protect these precious commodities, and his effort o_n both fronts earned him an election to the National Academy of Sciences in 2005_ (I remember the days when it was ones science that got one elected to the Academy, people like my postdoctoral mentor, yyyyyyy). i also found that you were an advisor for the Gore film “An Inconvenient Truth” (a documentary it ain't!-it is an example of advocacy at its worst).
…I was concerned at the alarmism and advocacy that was apparent in many publications in this area of research. One of the publications was a paper on the glaciers of Kilimanjaro by Mote and Kaser. After reading your article I went back and reread their article. They noted that the temperature over most of the glacier was almost always well below the freezing point of water and concluded that the vast majority of the loss of ice was due to sublimation. They also noted “The first and only paper asserting that the glacier shrinking on Kibo was associated with rising air temperatures was published in 2000 by xxxxxxx and co-authors”. I think they are correct in their conclusion and their work appears sound. I think your current paper in PNAS is an example of advocacy, not science”.
17 December 2009
at 9:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MaxLayman (Anonymous) says…
“melott”,
Thank you Sir for your explanation. I had read that on line, already in various forms. Plus, I have an appreciation for “clouds” forming from radiation tracks. My friend, Bruce, built a “Wilson Cloud Chamber” from a science bell jar with an old radium dial for a radiation source. We actually saw a “track” appear, and disappear in a blink, but two observers from two different angles could see that whatever particle it was didn't come from the radium (which probably wasn't going to work, anyway). We kept trying, until I over pressurized the bell jar and there went Bruce's Science Project.
New question: Is there a direct correlation with the 11/22 year sunspot cycles and tree ring dimensions?
This was in my high school text book (1957, without a footnote, and with no statistical significance given). That was in the days before the Van Allen radiation belt had been discovered and no satellites to observe solar flares.
It always fascinated me as a teenager (my science project was to observe sunspots for a couple of months using my telescope to project an image on paper circles, plotting them with a pencil). More fun and curiosity, than science…
I am e-mailing my grandson in Colorado who is questioning global warming (we saw a chart where the “green line” stops abruptly and disappears — too bad I can't copy it onto this blog, like other web sites, to explain our question, better). Actually I have several jpg files that show what was purportedly discovered from the “hacked e-mails”. I need to put all that in terms that a 12 year old (but, very bright for his age) would be able to comprehend.
17 December 2009
at 11:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“Just the facts man, just the facts…”
OK
“Back in the 70's the climate experts said we were going to have an ice age. ”
Not really. The consensus at the time (though not as strong as now) was that global warming was much more likely than an ice age.
17 December 2009
at 11:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
JSpizias— even if the disappearing glacier on Kilimanjaro is happening because of sublimation rather than melting, there must be some cause to its disappearance, isn't there?
17 December 2009
at 11:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“Actually I have several jpg files that show what was purportedly discovered from the “hacked e-mails”. ”
AP recently reviewed all of those emails, and found no indication that data were cooked, faked or concealed. They found no information that could somehow be construed as “debunking” the scientific consensus on global warming.
Did you arrive at different conclusions, and if so, could you cite passages from these emails that led to you these conclusions?
17 December 2009
at 11:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“I think your current paper in PNAS is an example of advocacy, not science”.”
Do you think the information in the abstract (from PNAS) is merely “advocacy?” Do you dispute the data contained in it?
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/200…
“Glacier loss on Kilimanjaro continues unabated
L. G. Thompsona,b,1, H. H. Brechera, E. Mosley-Thompsona,c, D. R. Hardyd and B. G. Marka,c
+ Author Affiliations
aByrd Polar Research Center, Ohio State University, 108 Scott Hall, 1090 Carmack Road, Columbus, OH 43210;
bSchool of Earth Sciences, Ohio State University, 125 South Oval Mall, Columbus, OH 43210;
cDepartment of Geography, Ohio State University, 154 North Oval Mall, Columbus, OH 43210; and
dDepartment of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, 236 Hasbrouck, Amherst, MA 01003
Edited by James E. Hansen, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY, and approved September 22, 2009 (received for review June 1, 2009)
Abstract
The dramatic loss of Kilimanjaro's ice cover has attracted global attention. The three remaining ice fields on the plateau and the slopes are both shrinking laterally and rapidly thinning. Summit ice cover (areal extent) decreased ≈1% per year from 1912 to 1953 and ≈2.5% per year from 1989 to 2007. Of the ice cover present in 1912, 85% has disappeared and 26% of that present in 2000 is now gone. From 2000 to 2007 thinning (surface lowering) at the summits of the Northern and Southern Ice Fields was ≈1.9 and ≈5.1 m, respectively, which based on ice thicknesses at the summit drill sites in 2000 represents a thinning of ≈3.6% and ≈24%, respectively. Furtwängler Glacier thinned ≈50% at the drill site between 2000 and 2009. Ice volume changes (2000–2007) calculated for two ice fields reveal that nearly equivalent ice volumes are now being lost to thinning and lateral shrinking. The relative importance of different climatological drivers remains an area of active inquiry, yet several points bear consideration. Kilimanjaro's ice loss is contemporaneous with widespread glacier retreat in mid to low latitudes. The Northern Ice Field has persisted at least 11,700 years and survived a widespread drought ≈4,200 years ago that lasted ≈300 years. We present additional evidence that the combination of processes driving the current shrinking and thinning of Kilimanjaro's ice fields is unique within an 11,700-year perspective. If current climatological conditions are sustained, the ice fields atop Kilimanjaro and on its flanks will likely disappear within several decades.”
17 December 2009
at 11:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cg22165 (Anonymous) says…
JSpizias,
I'm not sure I got your point on the Kilimanjaro glacier. If it had something to do with sublimation versus melting, you are aware that the rate of sublimation increases with temperature, right?
18 December 2009
at 12:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cg22165 (Anonymous) says…
“…the experts said we were going to have an ice age..”
I don't know how many times I've heard this repeated. I do know no one has sited any original research article(s) where this was put forth as a possibility when I asked. I actually looked it up once, there were 1-3 articles along this line. That's not exactly a majority of experts.