“Over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore” according to Marc Morano at the launch of a new report in Washington. Mr Morano is communications director for the Republicans on the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
According to Mr Morano, “This new 231-page U.S. Senate Minority Report report — updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” — features the skeptical voices of over 650 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC.
“This updated report includes an additional 250 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grow louder in 2008 as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments challenged the UN and former Vice President Al Gore’s claims that the “science is settled” and there is a “consensus.” On a range of issues, 2008 proved to be challenging for the promoters of man-made climate fears.
Promoters of anthropogenic warming fears endured the following: Global temperatures failing to warm; Peer-reviwed studies predicting a continued lack of warming; a failed attempt to revive the discredited “Hockey Stick”; inconvenient developments and studies regarding CO2; the Sun; Clouds; Antarctica; the Arctic; Greenland; Mount Kilimanjaro; Hurricanes; Extreme Storms; Floods; Ocean Acidification; Polar Bears; lack of atmosphieric dust; the failure of oceans to warm and rise as predicted.
In addition, the following developments further secured 2008 as the year the “consensus” collapsed. Russian scientists “rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming”. An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exist. An International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC “be called to account and cease its deceptive practices,” and a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled.”
“This new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition challenging significant aspects of the claims of the UN IPCC and Al Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists’ equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears.
“Even the mainstream media has begun to take notice of the expanding number of scientists serving as “consensus busters.” A November 25, 2008 article in Politico noted that a “growing accumulation” of science is challenging warming fears, and added that the “science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.” Canada’s Financial Post noted on October 20, 2008, that “the number of climate change skeptics is growing rapidly.” New York Times environmental reporter Andrew Revkin noted on March 6, 2008, “As we all know, climate science is not a numbers game (there are heaps of signed statements by folks with advanced degrees on all sides of this issue),” Revkin wrote. In 2007, Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics “appear to be expanding rather than shrinking.”
Link to Intro and full report: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7
Photograph of Marc Morano taken by Jennifer Marohasy in New York in March 2008.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
This story has appeared on various sites including Icecap and they all give the above link to the epw website yet I always get a 404.
I’ve read quotes from it but have never been able to access the site.
what’s going on here?
Cue catastrophists attacking
a) – Mark Morano for being in the pocket of big oil (gee, it’s hard not to type “Monaro”), and
b) – generally playing the man not the ball by attacking individual members of the skeptic group
in 1,2,3…
Janama go to this link, http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs click on more for the story and there is a link to the full printable PDF report that works.
DMS,
The link to the intro works and from there you can access the full report. It is over 230 pages though.
Why bother playing Morano when the list itself is utterly without credibility.
Weather broadcasts from local TV stations are now “prominent international scientists”
Wow.
How do they rank High-School science teachers – potential Nobel Laureates?
“How do they rank High-School science teachers – potential Nobel Laureates?”
Hmmm. Good question. They’ve got to be at least a notch or two above a washed up politician.
Tim Lambert links to this post attacking the list’s credibility:
climateprogress.org/2008/12/11/inhofe-morano-recycles-long-debunked-denier-talking-points-will-the-media-be-fooled-again/
Meanwhile, Jennifer, have you noticed this yet?:
http://www.physorg.com/news148239677.html
janama “I’ve read quotes from it but have never been able to access the site”.
That happened to me with wattsupwiththat. Turned out to be a URL rejection range that I had set in my firewall. Although the range was not large, wattsup fell in the range and was rejected.
Grendel “Why bother playing Morano when the list itself is utterly without credibility”.
Have you ever looked at a list of IPCC scientists, including lead authors? Talk about a lack of credibility.
Steve from Brisbane,
I went over and read the article. Interesting, but what caught my eye is one of the commenters remarked that Christy’s “scenario” of no warming until the 1998 El Nino seemed implausible.
So I went on to Google just to refresh my memory on what the UAH time series plot actually looked like, and this turned up!
http://flickr.com/photos/7672614@N05/2319035889/
Of course, correlation is not causation.:-)
steve from brisbane “Tim Lambert links to this post attacking the list’s credibility:…”
nice try steve. Your link is to the ‘Centre For American Progress’, founded by former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta. Now a source of both ideas and people for the Obama administration.
Guess who was Clinton’s vice president, and who did nothing about global warming in his 8 year tenure. Al Gore ring a bell?
With respect to your link about Christy, I have missed your point. Christy is still waiting for the hot spot in the atmosphere predicted by computer models. His partner, Roy Spencer, put out the graph showing no net warming in the atmosphere over the past 10 years.
Gordon, why does it matter who it is who is pointing out facts? If the list is deceptive in that it includes people who are not actually skeptics, a TV weatherman, and people with no real background with which to judge climate science, I couldn’t care less about the political connections of who brought that to my attention.
As to Christy: this latest analysis seems to have just come out, and the story I linked to contained elements that I knew warming skeptics would latch onto. However, it also sounds like stronger evidence of satellite measured warming than I had heard previously. (And Jennifer recently posted her opinion that satellite measurements would be given the most credibility in future.)
“Tim Lambert links to this post attacking the list’s credibility”
If anyone has credibility issues, it’s Tim Lambert as J.F.Beck frequently demonstrates on his blog rwdb.blogspot.com/ .
Actually having the ability to recognise bulldust does not really require expertise in bulldustiness, so the list Marc Morano listed is quite credible. After all, the AGW hypothesis is actually the misuse of science for a political agenda, and thus not science at all so the complaints by the climate clowns here can be rejected.
I am reviewing a new text on Regolith Science by the CSIRO and they published a neat graph showing atmospheric CO2 content over geological time. I’ll see if I can get a copy of the graph and post it on my own blog.
Dissent From Darwinism “Goes Global” as Over 600 Scientists Around the World Express Their Doubts About Darwinian Evolution
SEATTLE — Over 600 doctoral scientists from around the world have now signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution. The statement, located online at http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org, reads: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
The fastest growing segment of the list is scientists from outside the United States. International scientists now represent just over 12% of all signers, and as a group has seen nearly 40% growth in the past four months.
“I signed the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement, because I am absolutely convinced of the lack of true scientific evidence in favour of Darwinian dogma,” said Raul Leguizamon, M. D., Pathologist, and a professor of medicine at the Autonomous University of Guadalajara, Mexico.
“Nobody in the biological sciences, medicine included, needs Darwinism at all,” added Leguizamon. “Darwinism is certainly needed, however, in order to pose as a philosopher, since it is primarily a worldview. And an awful one, as Bernard Shaw used to say. The hold it has in academic circles is not at all due to the empirical evidence that allegedly supports it, but to its philosophical presuppositions and implications, the political correctness of the Darwinian paradigm and the intellectual inertia of academia in general. ”
The list of 610 signatories includes member scientists from National Academies of Science in Russia, Czech Republic, Hungary, India (Hindustan), Nigeria, Poland, Russia and the United States. Many of the signers are professors or researchers at major universities and international research institutions such as Cambridge University, British Museum of Natural History, Moscow State University, Masaryk University in Czech Republic, Hong Kong University, University of Turku in Finland, Autonomous University of Guadalajara in Mexico, University of Stellenbosch in South Africa, Institut de Paléontologie Humaine in France, Chitose Institute of Science & Technology in Japan, Ben-Gurion University in Israel, MIT, The Smithsonian and Princeton.
“Dissent from Darwinism has gone global,” said Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman, former US Ambassador to the United Nations in Vienna. “Darwinists used to claim that virtually every scientist in the world held that Darwinian evolution was true, but we quickly started finding US scientists that disproved that statement. Now we’re finding that there are hundreds, and probably thousands, of scientists all over the world that don’t subscribe to Darwin’s theory.”
Discovery Institute first published its Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list in 2001 to challenge false statements about Darwinian evolution made in promoting PBS’s “Evolution” series. At the time it was claimed that “virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true.”
Prominent signatories include U.S. National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell; American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellow Lyle Jensen; evolutionary biologist and textbook author Stanley Salthe; Smithsonian Institution evolutionary biologist and a researcher at the National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Biotechnology Information Richard von Sternberg; Editor of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum –the oldest still published biology journal in the world– Giuseppe Sermonti; and Russian Academy of Natural Sciences embryologist Lev Beloussov.
Louis, for what it’s worth, I find Tim Lambert a very humourless blogger and still retain a skepticism about the Iraq death surveys despite all of his defence of them. But as I said, if a person convincingly points to something that really is a fact (for example, that someone claimed as a skeptic has made statements indicating they are not a skeptic at all,) then I tend not to disbelieve it just because I don’t share the opinion or politics of the person who brought it to my attention.
As for your statement that “the AGW hypothesis is actually the misuse of science for a political agenda”, I await details of the grand conspiracy that is behind all the AGW studies.
I find this increasingly annoying: I count myself as politically and socially conservative, yet there are so many on my side of politics in the blogosphere who say that because I believe greenhouse gases should be seriously reduced with some urgency, I must be some sort of crypto-Lefty who hopes of a crushing authoritarian world government.
Yes, by inclination most scientists are not conservatives. It is a big conspiratorial stretch, however, to believe that they let politics direct their conclusions on climate research.
Louis do you now consider yourself to be a ‘prominent scientist’?
The lack of credibility for the list is not based on the ability of the people on the list to recognise bulldust. It was presented as a list of ‘Prominent Scientists’ and most of the people on the list are not.
I think Marc is playing politics back to those who play the politics of “the consensus”.
I think what the list illustrates is that there are a lot of educated and outspoken individuals, including Louis, from a diversity of backgrounds, with a scientific training, who disagree with aspects of the so-called consensus. This fact makes a lie of the claims of many, including Al Gore, that it is only those in the pay of big oil who disagree.
I think the more relevant list in the context of scientists with standing and relevant qualifications is in the book ‘The Deniers’ by Lawrence Soloman – as recently reviewed by Art Raiche.
Grendel
Re. your replay to Louis,
I’d rather take the word of a geologist’s as to what’s what in the realm of climate than that of a peddler of coffee beans!
steve from brisbane ,
“I count myself as politically and socially conservative”
Sorry, but it is to others to judge that, by your words and actions!
From Art’s Review:
“The result was astonishing in that for all of the headline issues of the AGW hypothesis, he found dissenting scientists who were consistently the most accomplished and eminent people in their respective fields of expertise. In fact, the more he searched, the more there seemed to be, complete with data and analysis to support their positions. Chillingly, several of them, despite their substantial expertise and reputations, declined on-record interviews for fear of losing their funding and, in some cases, their jobs.
“Solomon’s book, ‘The Deniers’, is a tour-de-force of expert opinions organised into chapters corresponding to the headline issues of AGW. It starts with a chapter on the famous “hockey stick” graph, created by Michael Mann from temperature proxies such as tree rings and ice cores. The graph purports to show that for the past 1000 years, temperatures had been declining until about 1900 when they began rising alarmingly in correlation with the growth of human-induced CO2 emissions. It showed the 1990s as the hottest decade and 1998 the warmest year of the millennium. This graph of northern hemisphere temperatures for the last 1000 years appeared 7 times in the IPCC report of 2001.
Read more here:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/12/the-deniers-reviewed-by-art-raiche/
NONE of the links work.
This is a common complaint about the various reports, papers etc concerning AGW.
Whatever the reason, data remains hidden.
““The result was astonishing in that for all of the headline issues of the AGW hypothesis, he found dissenting scientists who were consistently the most accomplished and eminent people in their respective fields of expertise.”
I call this a lie. If there was any conspiracy so open to exposure, it would be blown open in a moment.
Grendel,
Oh, I see, Marc has added to the list I found myself on last year – the original list of 400 scientists . Smashing – but no I do not regard myself as a prominent scientist, just a scientist. Any prominence I now have would be more due to the ad hominems from your lot than any effort on my part.
Marcus, do you mean that it is impossible for a person to agree with the need for reduction of greenhouse gases and also be a political and social conservative?
SJT
What makes you think there is a conspiracy?
At least in the strictest sense of the word?
Just by going along with the flow, collecting the rewards is enough, and once you have been involved for a while, and placed your reputation on the line, it’s hard to stop.
steve from brisbane ,
No,
I said exactly what I meant, that you, calling yourself a “political and social conservative”
is meaningless.
What you mean by that, can be completely different from what I or someone else would call a conservative, it can only be determined by your actions.
Not likely that you will encounter someone, who freely describes himself as a rabid communist left winger either, but I assure you, they do exist. (by no means do I refer to you in this case)
OK. I’ve removed the second link from the above post – I thought I checked it when I first posted, but it certainly does not work anylonger.
The first link still works for me and provides links to the pdf report.
Marcus,
Obviously you stopped by my blog. If you’d stayed longer you’d have discovered that my blog is about my hobby (coffee), not my work.
Louis acknowledges that he is not a prominent scientist. My point from the beginning was that it is dishonest to launch a list and describe it as a list of ‘Prominent scientists’ when it is nothing of the sort.
John M (and Steve); your link to the ’98 step-up has been looked at by Bob Tisdale here where he does a comparison between all the temperature data sources;
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/08/did-9798-el-nino-cause-step-change-in.html
Bob has gone to considerable effort to show that there is a very strong statistical correlation between ENSO and temperature movements over the 20thC; there has also been a similar step-up in 1976; between these 2 ENSO related step-ups nearly all of the temperature movement in the last 30 years is accounted for. The argument against this, which was recently subject to a thread at Deltoid is that a correlation is not a cause, which is ironic because AGW has no correlation at all; secondly, the argument is, how can a climate phase cause heat to build up; Bob has been assiduous in answering this by saying there is no temperature or energy creation; what there is is a temperature redistribution based on SST; when the warm surface water is not mixed with the cooler lower water, as happened between 1976-1998, then a protracted warmer surface of the ocean raises the GMST;
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/04/is-there-cumulative-enso-climate.html
The irony for me is that this mechanism is similar to what is described for AGW; with AGW the mechanism of CO2 entrapment of IR prolongs the warming resulting in AGW; with cessation of warm sea surface water mixing with cooler water we have a sustained warming mechanism for the globe; this mechanism has at least, as Bob’s expert graphs show, the benefit of correlation; CO2 increase has no correlation with temperature.
As for John Christy; his recent paper with David Douglass about ENSO removal suggests a CO2 effect of 0.07C PD BEFORE a reduction for insolation; as I have argued elsewhere, that figure of 0.07C PD may be a tad high to give to the AGW effect, especially since the post 1998 temperatures are falling.
Perhaps,Grendel should quit his whinging and start his own list:
“Official Coffee-shoppe-bloggers-from-regional tourist traps-who-endorse-AGW-orthodoxy”
Sorry, Nobel Laureates need not apply.
Actually, I think there is already a “Chardonnay-sipping-Socialists-who-endorse-suppression-of-dissent-against-The-Consensus” List
Every ABC journalist of the last 50 years has signed it. Now that’s a bloody consensus, mate!
Grendel,
And you must be a prominent twit but given the latest Tim Lambert Hatchet job on me, which I have yet to look at since Cohenite emailed me about it only this morning, I must respectfully inform you that I must indeed be a prominent scientist to deserve such attention from Tim Lambert.
And no, I did not immediately go to Deltoid to find out the latest Lambert Ad Homination that I am the victim of. Frankly speaking, I would have never known about it had Cohenite not warned me.
And you are a self admitted caffeine junky? Mind you I do enjoy my double espresso each morning from the Outram Cafe in West Perth, but return to normal when I subsequently consume strong instant coffee – philistine that I am.
Steve from Brisbane,
Actually there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas as no gas can store thermal energy, only transmit it. What greenhouse effect exists on the earth’s surface is dominated by water which none of the general circulation models incorporate because no one has yet worked out how to model clouds, and hence water.
As I and other empirical scientists keep harping on, AGW is a pseudoscience not based in empirical fact. No one, and I mean no one, has empirically demonstrated that increasing CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere causes it’s temperature to rise.
I have just visited Tim Lambert’s blog and indeed I am the star of his latest post!
Interestingly he quotes a lengthy summary of something I wrote on 21 January 2008, and which I told EPW?
As I don’t recall being interviewed by anyone during January 2008 over climate issues, Lambert’s quote
“”The assumption that humanity, from its burning of hydrocarbons, is raising the surface temperature of the earth by affecting its greenhouse effect, is not supported by theory nor the physical evidence. No gas is capable of storing heat so the assumption a gas could is to misunderstand basic physics and the greenhouse effect,” Hissink told EPW on January 21, 2008. ” is a blatant lie.
Heaven’s sake, I don’t even know what EPW stands for.
There is a reason why Tim Lambert has the nickname “Sir Ad Hominous”. The intellectually constipated always fall back on personal slurs as a debating tool when faced with a lack of empirical facts.
Gosh, I must be, in the eyes of the OZ AGW circus a most PROMINENT SCIENTIST to deserve such concerted effort to publicize my thoughts on global warming and Lyellian Lyricism.
Incidentally Tim Lambert quotes me but does not provide evidence for the source of the quote.
I wonder if we might strike out a Purple Cross in honour of climate sceptics being Ad Hommed by Cur Tim Lambert?
(Oh and Grendel, no, I did not bother reading the comments section in Lambert’s Ad Hom, since the reading the deliberations of the intellectually constipated gives me no pleasure at all).
Crickey, Loius, you deny ever making that statement, just after you made exactly that statement in the previous post.
I’m just wondering how Morano ever got the idea of adding you to his list?
Jennifer?
SJT,
Provide EVIDENCE I made that statement to someone during an interview.
Louis, that quote you deny, states exactly what you think.
SJT,
Please explain?
You said
People have a good idea how to model clouds, the hardware just hasn’t been adequate. The new generation of hardware should be able to do the job.
Will; you should read the Executive Summary on pp131-132 of AR4; they admit to having a low to very low scientific understanding of clouds and water generally; you had better pass on your information to them.
Sorry Wes – I don’t get the “regional tourist trap” line at all – I’m in Perth, we may be a long way away but hardly regional.
Louis – your earlier post seemed to express surprise at your inclusion on the list – which makes me wonder, did they ask the people on the list whether or not they would consent to being on the list. It seems the height of rudeness if they did not – I imagine a simple email would have sufficed.
“And you must be a prominent twit” Pointless ad hom (just thought I’d point that out since accusing any opponent here of making ad homs statements seems de rigueur to the point of tedium on this blog)
You then go on to point out that you must be prominent since you drew the attention of Tim Lambert – a figure you constantly deride as having no status. I am not sure then that you can logically conclude that such a person’s attention can give you ‘prominence’. In any case I suspect there is a fine line between prominence and notoriety.
Since I’ve drawn your attention, does that in turn rub off some of your gloss on me?
Oh goody.
“And you are a self admitted caffeine junky?”
No – to be a self-admitted caffeine junky I’d have to admit that I am addicted to caffeine. Since I haven’t then no, I’m not.
Like you I have my morning coffee – however, since I only have one or two a day I believe that quality counts.
“Mind you I do enjoy my double espresso each morning from the Outram Cafe in West Perth, but return to normal when I subsequently consume strong instant coffee – philistine that I am.”
Outram Cafe’s not bad for lunch – can’t recall their coffee however.
I guess we can start referring to you now as Louis Hissink, prominent self-confessed philistine. . .
Mark definitely cuts a fine figure – and nice tie too ! What a nice young man.
Is he married?
So this is the whole point isn’t it – denialists are better dressed and dine at finer establishments. If you’re denying things you need to do it with style and grace – none of this hairy arm-pitted eco-warrior stuff.
Which is where Louis is getting it wrong – you’ll never be taken seriously talking about the electric universe wearing drilling dust. Slip out of the Hard Yakkas into a little Emilio Zegna number.
Less Kimberley scrubber – more chic.
What’s really striking to me about that report is that it definitely gives the impression that the solidest phalanx of “resisters” to AGW appears to be the meteorologists. This is quite fascinating that the climatologists can’t even convince the meteorologists. Of course, that would qualify as an “anecdotal” observation. Has anyone actually surveyed meteorologists as a group to get more objective statistics on their views as a group?
It is indeed good that the official numbers are swelling. Perhaps with the assistance of all these “experts” the Australian “sceptics” can be mustered to write a single climate science paper relevant to AGW in a real science journal.
A show of hands doesn’t make for evidence.
” Perhaps with the assistance of all these “experts” the Australian “sceptics” can be mustered to write a single climate science paper relevant to AGW in a real science journal. ”
why? – skeptics don’t accept AGW theory – it’s up to those who propose the theory to write the papers to prove it. Obviously if there are still people who are skeptical after reading the papers the theory hasn’t been proven.
The mainstream has a century of publications culminating in 10,000s of pages of reviews by the IPCC. The “sceptics” have a show of hands from almost entirely unpublished non-experts.
Sorry, Jennifer, but still none of the links work. If you have a copy of the PDF, perhaps you could post it on zhare ?
El Luko is back with his usual Little Lord Fauntleroy low-level sarcasm. What a BOM-a-bubble dipstick he is !
The AGW adherents are again taking refuge in straw men, ad hominens, manufactured consensus as a dialectic, low level sarcasm etc. Yes, I am contemptuous of the politics – it’s a futile, self-perpetuating circle.
AGW “theory” is unfalsifiable as it proposes probabilities and so cannot make testable predictions. Empirical data over the last decade does not support the core notion of CO2 causing climate changes, nor does 3rd-order proxy data from palaeo-climates.
Science does not contain a “Precautionary Principle”; social engineering does.
“why? – skeptics don’t accept AGW theory – it’s up to those who propose the theory to write the papers to prove it. Obviously if there are still people who are skeptical after reading the papers the theory hasn’t been proven.”
From what I have read here, the main problem is different. As I have said before, it’s more a case of “If I can’t understand it, you can’t prove it”.
Thank heavens for Marc Morano setting me straight on Lambert’s quote from the U.S. Senate Report – Marc emailed me clarifying the source of the quote – so Tim Lambert did not write a blatant lie and I was wrong in writing that here. End of apology.
David
Sceptics cannot get published in a “science” journal – it is a well documented fact.
Lamprey, AKA Luke,
Ad hominating again are we? Run out of facts to throw at me? Slurring a scientific theory you don’t understand in the hope that others here will ignore it?
What is nice about you and Tim Lambert is the splendid help you give me in increasing my Google foot print – free advertising! And it’s backfiring as well – more and more thoughtful people are reassessing Velikovsky’s work and looking at the plasma physics applied to astronomy and cosmology.
I think you are starting to realize that if the electric universe theorists are right, then the physics supporting AGW is truly falsified. Hence the urgent need to discredit the electric universe theory and its messengers.
And just in case you have not yet worked it out, Velikovsky’s principal point was that if the historical records were an accurate description of past, then another force must be operating in the cosmos, in addition to gravity. Velikovsky was pilloried for raising this question by your predecessors in academe.
50 years later we now know Velikovsky was right – that force is electricity but it is the one natural force that is completely absent in climate science theory, (and geoscience as well).
I wonder why climate science resists modelling clouds – because of the association between clouds and electricity? Lightning? Thunderstorms? Modelling thunderstorms?
Is this the reason why you continue discrediting electric universe theories? Because these forces cannot be incorporated into the GCM’s? And if they were they would dominate and truly render CO2 as an extremely minor component in the Earth’s atmosphere.
But, hey keep it up, my prominence seems to becoming more prominent with every slur you and Tim Lambert throw at me.
I have not been able to access EPW site for ages. I live in Japan and everything was fine until a year or so. Suddenly the access was denied. I would also appreciate it if someone could provide a link to the pdf outside EPW.
“Will; you should read the Executive Summary on pp131-132 of AR4; they admit to having a low to very low scientific understanding of clouds and water generally; you had better pass on your information to them.”
They have a low understanding in the sense that they can’t model them. The grid sizes for the models are much larger than a cloud. With the new generation of hardware, they will be able to get grid sizes that produce more ‘natural’ clouds.
Requester
Must be some setting on your computer, or your ISP is blocking it.
I have no trouble accessing any site linked to here.
I have the same problem Requester – I’ve turned off my virus scanner, turned off my firewall etc but to no avail. Can’t access the site.
Louis has pointed this out before with other issues: The supporters of the AGW apocalypse (and they can’t seem to wait for it to happen) are serial hypocrites.
They loved to champion “the consensus” aspect of the science when it seemed to be going their way. As if scientific fact is determined by whose mob is the biggest. Yet now we have strong evidence that the real “consensus” has shifted rapidly towards a more sober expression of climatological theory.
Will the AGW cultists now shift their opinions to align with the authority of the emerging consensus? Consensus, after all is what they have long assured us is all that mattered?
Or will they now suddenly recall that consensus never really did matter at all in determining scientific veracities?
Unfortunately, for the AGW apocalypse socio-economic agenda “consensus” DOES matter in politics.
I’m not dead, I don’t want to go on the cart – I want to go for a walk, I feel happy. . .
Grendel sez:
Sorry Wes – I don’t get the “regional tourist trap” line at all – I’m in Perth, we may be a long way away but hardly regional.
Uh, oh. Better read this then:
Sarcasm finds medical use in dementia detection
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081212/ts_afp/healthaustraliadementia_081212061619
Will; do you have no shame, what am I saying, of course you don’t. So the new generation models will be better, eh; well why is there now an enhanced GH which emphatically depends on the feedback from water being a +ve feedback? Especially when there is so much compelling evidence showing that water is not +ve feedback but actually moderates temp movements. Why is this so Will?
No gramps – the reality is that you’re just not that important – but very funny (as well as wrong)…
Wes drones on about cultist/apocalypse nonsense with the usual missionary zeal ….. zzzzz – booorring ….. zzzzz
Wes if you ever think Louis is onto something – on instinct chose the opposite. i.e. when Louis starts to believe in AGW it really isn’t true.
Reality dear chumps is that the research effort continues on apace without any help from the likes of you (thank heavens)
>Sceptics cannot get published in a “science” journal – it is a well documented fact.
Louis, perhaps you might share for us the rejected papers and reviews by all those Australian sceptics who can’t get published?
David: errr
“A show of hands doesn’t make for evidence”
So in the light of this statement, where does that put Gore’s “consensus”?
Well, I still have lot’s of EPW links bookmarked in my browser. Access was fine until BANG one day I could not do it anymore. Nothing changed on my side of the computer and even now everything looks fine. I do not have any problems with any other site. I think this is strange and would still request a link to the pdf outside EPW address.
David,
Sceptical Australian scientists who can’t get published? The most recent one is Professor Plimer who mentioned to me that he could not find a publisher for his latest book, (He has one now after I suggested a particular publisher). He used to have all his books published by the ABC but this time round they refused. I wonder why……
And two Australian Academics made an official complaint to AIG council some years back about my editorial slant – I dared publish sceptical articles in AIG News. These two, who shall remain nameless, demanded I be sacked as editor. Unfortunately they received two separate letters from AIG councilors effectively telling them to get you know where.
I suspect any climate sceptic scientist in Australia would prefer not to be identified in fear of being proverbially kneecapped by the Australian Academic Science Mafia, a group who I have already had unpleasant experiences with as related in the previous paragraph.
So no, I cannot supply a list of papers and reviews by Australian sceptical scientists rejected by journals, for a simple reason – apart from Bob Carter and Ian Plimer, I don’t know of any other scientist who might fit your specifications.
So this is a bit of an open challenge – indeed where are all the rejected papers.
Surely if we have 650 scientists dissenting – well golly gee – the number would be well over 1000 rejected papers at least !
Will Jen be able to confirm the numbers for us?
Maybe our good friend Marc Morano can help.
And there doesn’t seem to be any shortage of publishers of anti-AGW theories on amazon.com – golly there are so many different theories and opinions to choose from – anyone can have a bash.
And of course dear Louis – there’s always E&E !!
And perhaps Louis being unafraid and bullet proof can name the members of Australian Academic Science Mafia (AASM !!) involved in this massive conspiracy of suppression ? or would you be full of it?
Lamprey
Once again you show yourself as a fact-free zone.
1. David explicitly stated Australian sceptics, so our emphasis on a world wide number of scientists simply confirms your stupidity.
2. E&E ? Why target that publication?
3. No, Lamprey, I have ethics so I won’t name people since if I did I would have your mob sueing me. If we swapped roles then you could not be sued. Simple as that.
Hence why you hide behind a pseudonym.
luke; the rejection of a scientific paper against AGW is a -ve; to prove a -ve you have to prove its opposite exists; which is, that scientists have had pro-AGW papers published; since there have been pro-AGW papers published it is evident that anti-AGW papers have been rejected.
As you’d expect David – they’ve come up empty. What a load of codswallop !
And what utter nonsense from Sinkers – a secret society that would sue ya – well what a load of bunk. More like imagination running riot. The only people that have talked about law-suits here are you lot. Standard modus operandi ?
Cohenite that is the most ridiculous attempt at logic – I’m surprised at you.
“since there have been pro-AGW papers published it is evident that anti-AGW papers have been rejected.”
In order for papers to be rejected they must be submitted, if none are submitted then there are none to reject.
Louis at least indicated he knew an author who’s book had been turned down for publication, but even he was unable to specify the reason it was rejected (having a book rejected is actually a common occurrence in publishing – having a book accepted for publication is the rarity!)
grendel
“In order for papers to be rejected they must be submitted”
I am at loss here,
first, luke and co. always ridiculing other scientific journals as inferior, for publishing material contrary to AGW.
What choice do these scientist have, if they are denied access to the ones he approves?
second, how does anyone know, how many and what, papers were submitted and rejected?
luke; the rejection of a scientific paper against AGW is a -ve; to prove a -ve you have to prove its opposite exists; which is, that scientists have had pro-AGW papers published; since there have been pro-AGW papers published it is evident that anti-AGW papers have been rejected.
this is completely false.
that pro-AGW papers are published is NOT the logic opposite of anti-AGW papers being not published.
actually, the opposite event simply is, anti-AGW papers being published. (yes, logic is that simple…)
second, how does anyone know, how many and what, papers were submitted and rejected?
well, the reviewers know, as do those submitting the paper.
reviewers are not allowed to speak about rejected papers. but those submitting them, actually have a significant interest in exposing this practise.
that they don t, hints to the truth on this subject..
Well, I don’t know about scientific papers and journals but in an interesting parallel Harry Clarke has tonight posted about his attempt to submit a paper broadly critical of AGW scepticism to Quadrant. He received an unsatisfactory response with his rejection and in the process discovered the reason given to another person who submitted a similar paper:
“…at the moment Quadrant is focusing on offering a platform for the sceptical position on this issue. We find that the pro-IPCC position is very well represented in almost every media outlet in the country, including academic journals and websites, but it is very difficult for sceptics to find any outlet for their voices to be heard. Hence, in the interests of balance, we believe the sceptics deserve a fair go in a little journal like ours. If the current position changes, we will be glad to consider pro-IPCC articles such as yours.”
So Quadrant is not be be used as a place of discussion of a variety of points of view from conservatives, but only anti-IPCC points of view.
Sounds like you’ve all got a place to publish – and you don’t even need to have it peer reviewed!
Harry’s full post here: http://kalimna.blogspot.com/2008/12/keith-windschuttle-on-climate-change.html
Louis Hissink,
Your apology is utterly inadequate.
You accused Tim Lambert of this
(Sorry if I’ve messed up the quoting.)
Lambert was quoting Morano quoting you, as anyone could verify in a few seconds by looking at Morano’s list. Why did you attack Lambert in the first place?
So, you are either a supreme idiot or a blatant liar. Which is it?
You know, Louis, the only way we know that you are not a parody of a denialist wingnut moron is that no one could make you up. You are beyond parody. 😀
Thank you grendel and sod for once again confirming that pro-warmers have no SOH at all; it’s called comedy displacement; for example; if sod has 12 jokes and tells Grendel 6 but Grendel only laughs at 3 while telling sod 6 jokes, at which sod only laughs at 3 how many jokes does sod have before Grendel thumps him?
Hypothesis H0(a):
There is no wealth of sceptic papers. The only problem with getting the few papers that exist published is that they’re crap. Illustrated by the many many anti-greenhouse theorist hypotheses – seems like cosmic rays have bitten tthe dust for PDO (until the next fad comes along – probably next week – I know – electric universe – giggle). Which is why E&E exists.
And Louis doesn’t even use E&E…. sad ….
Hypothesis H0(b) There is no grand conspiracy of suppression – it’s simply that the arguments are bunk.
Hypothesis H0(c) The 650 list is mainly flotsam and jetsam. Anyone can join.
Truesceptic,
I attacked Lambert because he described me as a nutter, again. This time round I mispoke, to use a PC phrase.
Considering Tim Lambert’s reputation in the blogosphere over the years, my mea culpa is more than adequate since his post was essentially an ad hominem.
As least Tim Lambert has the courage to write under his own name, while you hide behind a pseudonym. The rest of your post is an ad hominem, and will be ignored.
Lamprey,
Your statements concerning me verge from the surreal to the bizarre – but not to mind – nice to see you dismiss papers you have never read as bunk. Harlow Shapley did that with Velikovsky – and that activity of the scientific mafia is very well documented.
Velikovsky? You just get more weird by the day, Loius.
SJT,
What’s so weird about Velikovsky – your total ignorance of the topic? That isn’t weird at all, is it.
Louis,
Lambert said
Sorry, screwed up the formatting. I hope it makes sense, but why is there no PREVIEW option here?
David was a bit wishful suggesting Australian “sceptics” can be mustered to write a single climate science paper relevant to AGW in a real science journal. If it has not happened spontaneously in a couple of decades then? Luke had a few hypotheses on how to test the rejection theory. That could be done with a new peer reviewed on-line scientific journal building on the Quadrant role of showing both sides and not getting distracted by the weight of evidence. (Like the butcher you can put your hand under the scales ) How to muster the sceptics?. Jennifer should not need a drovers dog to muster a few, but first she could set up an appeal for funding for a new ‘Fair Go’ journal. You could make “Fair Go’ interdisciplinary because it might be easier initially in the confusion created, but you might eventually become a discipline in your own right and then it can get tougher. Some of the contributions to this site would only need a bit of shaping to make the cut as novel research papers. Just a few headings as follows will get you started.
Abstract – a noun not an adjective.
Method – what you did, for example as in method acting or the rhythm.
Results – and don’t leave any out, naughty.
Conclusions – not too free range pls – you should feel a bit constrained by your methods and results.
References – it saves you repeating a lot of stuff and don’t forget to mention your possible reviewer and your mates.
Oh and I nearly forgot, you do need to show how it fits in with all the other research that is relevant and if you have a hypothesis you developed before you did the research, then all the better, otherwise you have to be inventive.
TrueSceptic
Axe grinding are we?
Excuse me but I have not called Lambert a nutter, or a moron or other derogatory terms as you me and, oh, now I am a schmuck as you write above.
Remember Lambert called me a nutter followed by some other links pertaining as proof. Why did Lambert need to do this in the first place?
So I reacted. Unfortunately it backfired.
Incidentally if you want the facts, All I did was supply Marc Morano with a synopsis of my position of global warming for the list of 400 scientists early on this year. I was not interviewed and quite frankly I had forgotten completely about it until reminded by Marc Morano.
Like to see what Morano wrote me? Easily done:
“Below is your entry in our Senate report. You did “tell EPW.” EPW is the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. You send me an email in January of 2008 when I asked you for comments for our report. Thanks!
Below is your official entry in the Senate report.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=37283205-c4eb-4523-b1d3-c6e8faf14e84
Field Geologist Louis A.G. Hissink is the editor of The Australian Institute of
Geoscientists Newsletter and is currently working on the ore-reserve feasibility study
of the Koongie Park Base Metals project in Western Australia. Hissink, who earned
a masters in geology, recently dissented from man-made climate fears. “The assumption
that humanity, from its burning of hydrocarbons, is raising the surface temperature of the
earth by affecting its greenhouse effect, is not supported by theory nor the physical
evidence. No gas is capable of storing heat so the assumption a gas could is to
misunderstand basic physics and the greenhouse effect,” Hissink told EPW on January
21, 2008. “The global mean temperature derivations from the surface meteorological
stations confuse the thermal state of the measuring instruments with unspecified volumes
of air nor are those temperatures linked to any discrete physical object; in geostatistics
this is known as a data set lacking sample support and no more a metric of the earth’s
thermal state as the mean calculated from the telephone numbers of the meteorological
stations producing the temperature readings,” Hissink explained. “Recent discoveries by
NASA in the area of space exploration show that the earth is connected to the sun
electromagnetically where tens of millions of amperes of electric current are routinely
measured during polar aurora displays by satellites – this enormous source of energy, and
thus heat, is completely ignored as a factor affecting the earth’s thermal balance in global
climate models. It is this electromagnetic connection that underpins the solar factor that
modulates the earth’s climate,” Hissink added. (LINK) & (LINK)”
An no, I am not apologizing to anyone at your demand. Who the hell are you anyway, some profaned anonymouse?
But I suspect you won’t let this rest will you, so it will be interesting to see you wick up the hysteria a few more notches.
Have fun.
So essentially Louis you’re saying you haven’t got any evidence?
You’re on a rightist cold war ex-WMC good old boys club fantasy about reds under bed.
I painted mine with red rust primer.
Lamprey,
Evidence for what? What on earth are you blathering about now.
Sure you have not posted in the wrong thread?
Lamprey
I think you mean “greens under the bed”. Behind the times are you not?
Louis: “I think you mean “greens under the bed”.”
And the difference is?
Jan,
Green on the outside and red on the inside 😉 Called evolution?
Requester, try accessing the site from another location like an internet cafe. Might give you an idea of whether they are blocking Japan in general. Alternatively you could install Tor/Vidalia which makes it appear from the host site that you are coming in from other places.
Hi ya Jan! I’m still having trouble with david’s web-site so I wonder if you could provide a bit of assistance; I’ve read a couple of sources which state that given the spectrum at which CO2 absorbs and the amount of upward flux in the relevant wavelength that about 100ppm of CO2 is sufficient to mop up the IR in its absorbing bands; I have to be careful about this since eli is lurking and has ‘winged’ me about the 650cm figure.
Louis; I’m not sure what the fuss is; your statement seems straightforward enough in respect of the lack of evidence substantiating AGW and the failure of the GMST is something Essex et al have already considered; is it that you forgot you said this, or is there some other esoteric issue floating around here? BTW, do you mind if I e-mail you about Koongie?
Cohenite,
It’s quite interesting this fuss about a short summary I sent to Marc and I am not sure why Lambert needs to harp on the issues forming the worst global warming argument.
It is generally accepted that plate tectonic theory has failed and while no all encompassing alternative has been proposed, (though expanding earth theorists are hopeful), one fact is becoming obvious – if continental drift never happened, then this mechanism cannot be used to explain the existence of glacial deposits on continents now located in temperate or equatorial regions.
As our predecessors have consistently asserted that the earth seemed to have changed its axis of spin etc, the tippe-toppe hypothesis, (and I quoted a lengthy list of citations from history) then this completely undermines present assumptions of palaeoclimate. The tippe-toppe earth was proposed by Hugh Auchincloss-Brown, for example, and others have also considered it. But for this mechanism to work requires gravity being relegated to a secondary place in the pantheon of forces in the cosmos, hence the continued discrediting of electric universe theory by Lamprey and the Turing Machine.
I think Lambert and crew sense this, hence the need to shoot the messenger of this new geological explanation. They are too late, of course, since thoughtful people are reassessing these hypotheses.
And no problem emailing me re Koongie.
Cohenite,
I plain forgot I wrote that by the way but it was Lambert’s unnecessary labeling of me as a nutter which caused a temporary fit of intemperance.
“Hi ya Jan! I’m still having trouble with david’s web-site so I wonder if you could provide a bit of assistance; I’ve read a couple of sources which state that given the spectrum at which CO2 absorbs and the amount of upward flux in the relevant wavelength that about 100ppm of CO2 is sufficient to mop up the IR in its absorbing bands; I have to be careful about this since eli is lurking and has ‘winged’ me about the 650cm figure.”
I have asked you already. Let’s assume it is true. What happens to the radiation that is ‘mopped up’? It just can’t be accumulated forever.
Louis…get that rum ready for me will ya? It’s now -31.1 C in Churchill, Manitoba, with a wind chill of – 46 C (wind speed WNW 26 km/hour). It would be -32 C, but obviously global warming is playing a part. In Vancouver, on the tropical west coast, it just hit 0 C and we had our first snow yesterday. We like the rain here because you don’t have to shovel it. In Winnipeg (-25.6 C, wind chill – 42 C), summer is two months of bad skating.
Will, read Chilingar and Miskolczi; M shows there is a LTE at the surface boundary where ED = SU [1-TA]; this is derived from assumptions (g) and (h); what that means is that at every surface point there is a Stefan-Boltzman determined LTE between the surface and the immediate atmosphere; at a rate determined by the lapse rate at that point, vertical convection will transport that LTE to the CEL in the atmosphere; the CEL is at that point where the internal temperature of the LTE parcel is no longer distinct from the surrounding air; at that point the CO2 in the air will emit; the CEL will be at different heights depending on the lapse rate so the criticism levied at Chilingar that his theory ignores radiative emissions from the atmosphere is overcome; the air parcel which was convectively uplifted will be replaced by another parcel as the original descends to start the process again. The issues are; the CO2 which has been conveyed to the CEL will emit isotropically, 1/2 up, 1/2 down thus theoretically increasing the radiation reaching the surface and increasing the SU, the radiation leaving the surface; but this ignores clouds and water vapor getting in the way, and the fact that the IR windows remain open; is there an increase in SU at the relevant wavelength for increased CO2 to “trap”; if there isn’t the increased SU CO2 is irrelevant, hence my question; if there is an increase in SU that should mean an altered lapse rate and increased convective removal of the extra CO2 rich LTE parcels of air; CO2 emits at a slower rate than it absorbs but that is irrelevant given the convective process; if it counters the 2nd scenario where there is increased relevant SU for the increased CO2 by simply removing the CO2 quicker; Philipona and others have supposedly found an increase in clear sky LDR indicative of a THS; but P has problems and I rather think that the cap on CO2 effect through no extra SU is occuring; but hey, I’m wiling to listen to reasonable counter-arguments.
Gordon,
holey moley that is coooold. Over proof rum is the prescription.
I recall a conversation with a colleague about mineral exploration in the North West Territories during winter – one rule was not to wear any clothing with metal buttons or studs etc. Seems the metal buttons create ice poles into the chest cavity and are usually fatal when you adjust your shirt.
I suppose the polar bears are dancing around the maypole at Churchill as well, celebrating coldness.
Shoveling rain isn’t possible with a snow-shovel – you need a water scoop!
There is this, for example.
from your friend Weart.
cohenite: “at which CO2 absorbs and the amount of upward flux in the relevant wavelength that about 100ppm of CO2 is sufficient to mop up the IR in its absorbing bands;”
You can play with different concentrations of CO2 in MODTRAN and you be surprised how much you have to change the concentration to actually make a noticeable difference
On the Weart history scale, you are about up to the understanding they had in the 1950’s. Read my previous post.
Will; MOTRAN shows what is happening at each layer; it is a LBL spectrum profile of the atmosphere; like HARTCODE, which M used and TIGR and to a limited extent the Cabauw measurements; eli had a link to a number of LBL profile models; maybe he’ll link it again. My fiddling with MOTRAN which Jan provided (thanks Jan!) shows that decreases in CO2 do change the profile, as you’d expect if the greenhouse effect is at a maximum, but doesn’t shift it with increases. Why don’t you have a go?
Louis Hissink,
Yet you saw fit to post this
You attacked Lambert for lying. You were mistaken. Your inability to apologise is what makes you a schmuck.
As for being called a “nutter”, I’d be proud of that. Given that you have contempt for the scientific establishment and all those who accept mainstream science, any insult from that crowd is surely a compliment. How would you expect otherwise given the list of unconventional beliefs you have? Perhaps you could remind us what they are?
Truiesceptic
As I said, the hysteria dial has been turned up. I also see you are a tad repetitious – needle stuck in the groove is it?
I have contempt for pseudoscience by the way, which a lot of mainstream science unfortunately has fallen into; I add that I am not alone in this respect.
Oh and please do list the unconventional beliefs you allege I have, it would be interesting to read how porkies you might be capable of.
Louis,
Repetition tends to happen when a question is evaded (do you know of Jeremy Paxman?).
I’m surprised that you think I _allege_ that you have unconventionial beliefs. Surely you are proud of same? Should I list them and see which are still current?
Truesceptic
I have no intention of apologising to anyone who deploys messenger shooting as a debating tool.
I care not a whit whether I know of Jeremy Paxman or not.
I think you confuse multiple working hypotheses as beliefs, and didn’t I ask you to list in the previous post are have you reading difficulties.
Louis….”holey moley that is coooold. Over proof rum is the prescription”.
Yes…the rum acts as a good anti-freeze to keep your blood from freezing. I have heard tales of other methods though as described in this poem by the Canadian poet, Robert Service:
http://theroadlesstraveled.wordpress.com/2006/08/05/the-cremation-of-sam-magee/
Note the reference to the eyelashes freezing together so you can’t open your eyes. I worked with a young guy from northern Alberta who claimed that was true.
Also, note the phrase, “a promise made is a debt unpaid”. That’s a term used by older Canadians I have known and I’m sure it originated with Robert Service.
About the polar bears in Churchill. They’ll be off cavorting in the frozen tundra by now. The garbage will be frozen and of no interest to them. They are most likely hiding out from census takers and having a giggle.
TrueSceptic,
You don’t have dyslexia by any chance? It would seem from my side of the screen that “GreenStooge” might be a more appropiate moniker to punch in next time, I fink!
http://www.tvscoop.tv/2008/11/dizzee_rascal_t.html
C, MOTRAN is what you take for a headache
eli before taking his MOTRAN;
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_JS6pFSbLmRU/RirgyHkYbmI/AAAAAAAAAKk/shCD-zfxdik/s1600-h/Sick+Rabbit+2.jpg
Cohenite: “eli before taking his MOTRAN;”
I don’t know what MOTRAN is sounds like a trucking company but Motrin is and analgesic (Ibuprofin I believe) I hope the clever bunny doesn’t swallow MOTRAN whatever it is. Might give him a bigger headache.
Jan; apparently one of the acronyms for MOTRAN is for a West Texan trucking alliance; maybe eli comes from Texas, or wishes he did.
cohenite: Not a bad guess. I just love it when a spelling flame warrior bunny gets it wrong.
fricaseed wabbit?
WJP,
My reading abilities are fine, thank you. Got anything constructive?
Being a lazy sort, I was hoping that Louis would save me some searching and typing, but it seems not…
So who said MOTRAN first? I thought it was cohenite.
Yep, and Eli thought it just showed exactly how much C understands about what he cuts and pastes.
(BTW MODTRAN is NOT a line by line code and there is a lot more between head breakingly stupid and not even wrong with what he wrote) The Bunny has to go find some MOTRAN.
TrueSceptic: “Being a lazy sort..”
Says it all, doesn’t it.
Oh ok eli; MODTRAN models an atmospheric profile of the propogation of radiation with a spectral resolution of 1 cm-1; so how is a LBL atmospheric profile different?
Yes, truesceptic, I cannot tell a lie, it was me. You have obviously exhausted your ironic capacity with your sobriquet.
The Bunny has to go find some MOTRAN.
Bunny needs to learn to spell before he poisons himself.
2 cm-1
*munches on some popcorn*
Update from the Great White North:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2008/12/15/prairie-cold.html
It’s not just the prairies that are cold, Vancouver, which is normally between 0 C and 6 C this time of year is – 6 C. There’s no end in sight, that’s what gets me. We often get a week or two of weather like this in February, but it’s literally unheard of this time of year.
Hope this isn’t a harbinger of things to come.
Louis,
“Being lazy” explains what, exactly?
Anyway, I think discussing your unconventional beliefs would take this thread too far OT. Perhaps Jennifer might give them a thread of their own? They interesting enough to warrant that.
Cohenite,
Good thing that you know what *irony* means, then. 😉
Me,
They *are* interesting…
Honestly. I love stuff like that.
“Hmmm. Good question. They’ve got to be at least a notch or two above a washed up politician”
Gore has nothing to do with the IPCC report.