Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

[OldBlackDog]

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
When you actually read the article, at the bottom is his e mail.
I am sure he will like to hear your comments about him.
Also, libel is cool, not a good thing on the web.
libel is the type of defamation with a permanent record, like a newspaper, a letter, a website posting, an email, a picture, or a radio or TV broadcast. If you can prove that someone libeled you, and that person does not have a good defence (see the section on defences below), then a court will presume that you suffered damages and award you money to pay for your damaged reputation. But going to Supreme Court is expensive and even if you win, you may not get as much as it costs you to sue. In deciding on damages, the Court will consider your position.

Lord Monckton again??

Hilarious on the one hand but much more evidence that you've suffered some mental breakdown or something on the other.

Nobody who can read would use him as some kind of authority on global warming and the attendant climate change.

Nobody save a paid performer, a dupe or a troll.

All three options are sad in their own way too, when you look at them.



Take care.

 

[OldBlackDog]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/05/w...weeps-away-environmental-rules.html?ref=world.

 

[GLG]

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
When you actually read the article, at the bottom is his e mail.
I am sure he will like to hear your comments about him.
Also, libel is cool, not a good thing on the web.
libel is the type of defamation with a permanent record, like a newspaper, a letter, a website posting, an email, a picture, or a radio or TV broadcast. If you can prove that someone libeled you, and that person does not have a good defence (see the section on defences below), then a court will presume that you suffered damages and award you money to pay for your damaged reputation. But going to Supreme Court is expensive and even if you win, you may not get as much as it costs you to sue. In deciding on damages, the Court will consider your position.

Well that's rich..... Your side "If you can prove that someone libeled you, and that person does not have a good defence (see the section on defences below)," speaking of going to court for libel. Seems to me that my side has done just that against your side. How has that worked out. So far your side has lost on every case. In fact there is a another one going on right now. Mann v. Steyn etal. That's not going well for your team is it. Sounds like Steyn might be putting his house up for sale soon as this will cost him big time. Could even bring down the rag "National Review" pity on that one as once this rag had some value. That's was before the clowns on your side took it over. The other clowns were from the "Competitive Enterprise Institute"...... Your teams efforts to have this case dismissed have so far been rejected by the courts. Why is that? Another case was here in BC. How did that work out for your side? Another loss on your side. One more in Alberta that didn't work out the way your side had hoped. Seems to me if I was on your team I would keep my mouth shut about going to court but then again the "hand waving" and "making stuff up" seem to be all your side has these days.
http://rabett.blogspot.ca/2014/11/pro-se-cei-nr-michael-mann.html

 

[GLG]

Peer Reviewed!!!

Lord Monckton concludes –
“... Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no ‘climate crisis’ at all. ... The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.”

Your claim...Peer Reviewed!!! no it's not... your just "making stuff up" again.
This is a very important subject. What is the climate sensitivity? real science has some thoughts on this matter that can be found here.

Climate sensitivity can be calculated empirically by comparing past temperature change to natural forcings at the time. Various periods of Earth’s past have been examined in this manner and find broad agreement of a climate sensitivity of around 3°C. http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm

 

[OldBlackDog]

The following letter was sent to Ban Ki-moon,
Secretary-General of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali:

Dec. 13, 2007

Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government *representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.

Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:

Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.

The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see IPCC Working Group Schedule) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.

The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.

Yours faithfully,

 

[OldBlackDog]

Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired vice-chancellor and president, University of Canberra, Australia

William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand

Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg

Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany

Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment journal

Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.

Reid A. Bryson, PhD, DSc, DEngr, UNE P. Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin

Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta

R.M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand

David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma

Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University

Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia

Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands

Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario

David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of ‘Science Speak,' Australia

William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame

Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia

R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa

Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany

Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay

Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden

Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand

William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project

Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut

Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia

Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona

Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA

Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis

Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, NSW, Australia

Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia

Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia

David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand

Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007

William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands

Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands

The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.

Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware

Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand

William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.

Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors

Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia

Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia

Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany

John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand

Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.

Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph

John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia

Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand

Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University

Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University

Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia

Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden

Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia

David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University

Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia

Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia

R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University

Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota

Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan

Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences

Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force

R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology

Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.

 

[seadna]

Love it , you do not believe in satellite measurements. Says a lot About your science.
We are talking a out global science not science that does not measure all the areas of the earth.

Nice try. I never said "I do not believe in satellite measurements". What I did say was "If you actually bothered to look at the primary research, you'd find that the satellite data is not ignored but that it also has correction factors that must be applied." I also said "However, if one's intent is to debunk global warming, it's easier and better to assume that 1000's of climate scientist are idiots who cannot use the best temperature measurements available and/or who are colluding to misrepresent the truth."

The plain and simple fact is that the atmospheric science community does not in fact ignore the satellite data. It's also true that over time, the temperatures inferred from the satellite data (with appropriate corrections and models applied) are in good agreement with the ground based measurements (which cover a much longer period of time). It would serve you well to educate yourself a bit about how satellites infer temperature on the ground (and in the intervening layers of atmosphere). Note that I use the word "infer" since satellites, unlike thermometers, do not measure temperature directly but rather infer it from spectral radiance. Satellite data has the advantage of better global coverage but the disadvantage of data being available over a shorter period of time and a lower accuracy in the inferred temperature at any given point on the earth. See this excellent wikipedia article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements - to better understand how satellite temperatures are inferred and to better understand how they are calibrated against ground based stations. I'm not so much into the personal attack, but I agree that what you and I have both said, says a lot about our relative understanding of science. By the way, have you found the "source" of your Einstein "quote" - If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts?

 

[OldBlackDog]

V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway

Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA

S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service

L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario

Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden

Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC

Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia

Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia

Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany

Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia

Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia

A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy

 

[seadna]

So, seadna, you disagree with this??
2014 a Record Warm Year? Probably Not.
December 4th, 2014
As continual fiddling with the global surface thermometer data leads to an ever-warmer present and an ever-cooler past, many of us are increasingly skeptical that beating a previous “warmest” year by hundredths of a degree has any real-world meaning. Yet, the current UN climate meeting in Lima, Peru, is setting the stage for some very real changes in energy policy that will inevitably make energy more expensive for everyone, no matter their economic status.

But there are some very good reasons to be skeptical of the claim that 2014 will be the “hottest year ever”…at the very least from the standpoint of it having any real impact on peoples’ lives.

No One Has Ever Felt “Global Warming”
If you turn up your thermostat by 1 deg. F, you might feel slightly warmer in the few minutes it takes for the warming to occur. But no one has felt the 1 deg. F rise in global average temperature in the last 50 to 100 years. It is too small to notice, when we are routinely experiencing day-night, day-to-day, and seasonal swings of tens of degrees.

The Urban Heat Island Effect Has Hopelessly Corrupted the Land Thermometer Data
Most thermometers measure temperature where people live, and people tend to build stuff that warms the local environment around the thermometer.

Called the urban heat island (UHI) effect, most of the warming occurs long before the thermometer site actually becomes “urban”. For instance, if you compare neighboring thermometers around the world, and also compare their population densities (as a rough indication of UHI influence), it can be easily demonstrated that substantial average UHI warming occurs even at low population densities, about ~1 deg. F at only 10 persons per sq. km!

This effect, which has been studied and published for many decades, has not been adequately addressed in the global temperature datasets, partly because there is no good way to apply it to individual thermometer sites.

2014 Won’t Be Statistically Different from 2010
For a “record” temperature to be statistically significant, it has to rise above its level of measurement error, of which there are many for thermometers: relating to changes in location, instrumentation, measurement times of day, inadequate coverage of the Earth, etc. Oh…and that pesky urban heat island effect.

A couple hundredths of a degree warmer than a previous year (which 2014 will likely be) should be considered a “tie”, not a record.

Our Best Technology, Satellites, Say 2014 Will Not be the Warmest
Our satellite estimates of global temperature, which have much more complete geographic coverage than thermometers, reveal that 2014 won’t be even close to a record warm year.

In fact, the satellite and thermometer technologies seem to be diverging in what they are telling us in recent years, with the thermometers continuing to warm, and the satellite temperatures essentially flat-lining.

So, why have world governments chosen to rely on surface thermometers, which were never designed for high accuracy, and yet ignore their own high-tech satellite network of calibrated sensors, especially when the satellites also agree with weather balloon data?

I will leave it to the reader to answer that one.

Yes I disagree with that as it implies:
1) that scientists and governments ignore the satellite data (they don't, this simply isn't true) and
2) that the satellite data is more accurate that a land based thermometer (this simply isn't true either)
3) That land based thermometers were "never designed for high accuracy" (this isn't true either).

In fact, as I stated above, satellites do not directly measure temperature but rather infer it from spectral radiance data. The sensors that measure spectral radiance vary from satellite to satellite and they are subject to re-calibration over time as they age and as the satellites' orbits change. Guess what data is used to calibrate the temperatures inferred from satellite measurements of spectral radiance.......
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
If you guessed, "Land based thermometers" award yourself 10 points!

Whether 2014 was the absolute warmest year in recent history or just one of several of the warmest years in an ever increasing trend of rising global temperatures is pretty much irrelevant. So but overall I disagree with it since much of it is plain fiction - e.g. lies based on an agenda.

 

[OldBlackDog]

The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling

Nice try. I never said "I do not believe in satellite measurements". What I did say was "If you actually bothered to look at the primary research, you'd find that the satellite data is not ignored but that it also has correction factors that must be applied." I also said "However, if one's intent is to debunk global warming, it's easier and better to assume that 1000's of climate scientist are idiots who cannot use the best temperature measurements available and/or who are colluding to misrepresent the truth."

The plain and simple fact is that the atmospheric science community does not in fact ignore the satellite data. It's also true that over time, the temperatures inferred from the satellite data (with appropriate corrections and models applied) are in good agreement with the ground based measurements (which cover a much longer period of time). It would serve you well to educate yourself a bit about how satellites infer temperature on the ground (and in the intervening layers of atmosphere). Note that I use the word "infer" since satellites, unlike thermometers, do not measure temperature directly but rather infer it from spectral radiance. Satellite data has the advantage of better global coverage but the disadvantage of data being available over a shorter period of time and a lower accuracy in the inferred temperature at any given point on the earth. See this excellent wikipedia article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements - to better understand how satellite temperatures are inferred and to better understand how they are calibrated against ground based stations. I'm not so much into the personal attack, but I agree that what you and I have both said, says a lot about our relative understanding of science. By the way, have you found the "source" of your Einstein "quote" - If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts?

 

[seadna]

The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling

If one looks at the rate of temperature change (as recorded by any well calibrated system - ground or satellite and for older temperatures as inferred from other data - ice cores, tree rings, etc) over the past 1000 years, you'll find that the rate of measured change in the last few decades is much higher than anything inferred over the last 1000 years. You'll also find that the increase in temperature (and in rate) corresponds quite well to predictions made from modelling the increase in greenhouse gases (mostly CO2). This is what the vast majority of climate scientists have been pointing out for years. So the idea that these temperature rises are simply natural and are not driven by our own burning of fossil fuels is nonsense. "Leading scientists" have already spoken on this issue and they have come to consensus and that consensus is represented well in the AAAS reports, the IPCC reports etc.

BTW - did you happen to notice that your list of scientists (who wrote the work in 2007) happens to be 100 long? To me that seems like an eery reflection of the "100 Authors Against Einstein" book that tried to (unsuccessfully) refute the theory of relativity.

BTW(2) - I see you are not arguing with my assertions about the scientific community not ignoring the satellite data nor are you arguing with my assertions that thermometers are used to calibrate that data (or many other points of fact I disputed). So can I assume you now realize that the previous post of yours was littered with factual errors?

 

[agentaqua]

Oil falls on news that Saudis are preparing for $60 US crude
Brent Crude is below $70 and WTI at $66 as oil prices continue to slide
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/oil...audis-are-preparing-for-60-us-crude-1.2860516

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141204074309.htm

Localized climate change contributed to ancient southwest depopulation
Date: December 4, 2014
Source: Washington State University
Summary: The role of localized climate change in one of the great mysteries of North American archaeology -- the depopulation of southwest Colorado by ancestral Pueblo people in the late 1200s -- has been detailed by researchers. In the process of their study, investigators address one of the mysteries of modern-day climate change: How will humans react?

Hot sun (stock image). The dramatic changes in the Southwest took place near the end of the Medieval Warm Period, the warmest in the Northern Hemisphere for the last 2,000 years. The period had a smaller temperature change than we're seeing now, and its impact on the Southwest is unclear. But it is clear the Southwest went through a major change.

Credit: © umberto leporini / Fotolia
[Click to enlarge image]

Washington State University researchers have detailed the role of localized climate change in one of the great mysteries of North American archaeology: the depopulation of southwest Colorado by ancestral Pueblo people in the late 1200s.

In the process, they address one of the mysteries of modern-day climate change: How will humans react?

Writing in Nature Communications, WSU archaeologist Tim Kohler and post-doctoral researcher Kyle Bocinsky use tree-ring data, the growth requirements of traditional maize crops and a suite of computer programs to make a finely scaled map of ideal Southwest growing regions for the past 2,000 years. Their data paint a narrative of some 40,000 people leaving the Mesa Verde area of southwest Colorado as drought plagued the niche in which they grew maize, their main food source. Meanwhile, the Pajarito Plateau of the northern Rio Grande saw a large population spike.

The plateau "also happens to be the place where you would want to move if you were doing rain-fed maize agriculture, the same type of agriculture that people practiced for centuries up in southwest Colorado," said Bocinsky, who built the data-crunching programs while earning a WSU Ph.D. with support from a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship.

The dramatic changes in the Southwest took place near the end of the Medieval Warm Period, the warmest in the Northern Hemisphere for the last 2,000 years. The period had a smaller temperature change than we're seeing now, and its impact on the Southwest is unclear. But it is clear the Southwest went through a major change.

"At a very local scale, people have been dealing with climate fluctuations of several degrees centigrade throughout history," said Bocinsky. "So we need to understand how people deal with these local changes to generate predictions and help guide us in dealing with more widespread changes of that nature."

Bocinsky, the paper's lead author, said the study is particularly significant for modern-day subsistence farmers of maize, or corn, the world's largest food staple.

"People are generally going to try and find ways to keep on keeping on, to do what they've been doing before changing their technological strategy," he said. "That was something extremely interesting to me out of this project."

To get a more granular look at the changing climate of the Southwest, Bocinsky and Kohler used more than 200 tree-ring chronologies, which use the annual rings of ancient trees to reconstruct the area's climate patterns over time. Pines at lower elevations will have their growth limited by rainfall, making their rings good indicators of precipitation. High-elevation trees get good rain but are susceptible to cold, making them good indicators of temperature.

The shifting patterns of rainfall and temperature let Bocinsky and Kohler isolate to a few square kilometers the areas that would receive just under a foot of rainfall a year, the minimum needed for ancestral maize varieties still farmed by contemporary Pueblo people.

The area in what is now southwest Colorado's Mesa Verde National Park ended up being one of the best places to grow maize, with good conditions more than 90 percent of the time. The Pajarito Plateau ended up being highly suitable as well, with slopes that would shed cold air and precipitation levels suited to rain-fed agriculture.

Such big climate differences in such a small area illustrates how some areas could be hit harder than others by the extremes of global climate change, said Bocinsky. He said it is telling that, when the Pueblo people moved, they moved to where they could preserve their farming techniques. He said that could be important to keep in mind as farmers, particularly subsistence farmers on marginal lands, face localized climate impacts in the future.

"When we are looking for ways to alleviate human suffering, we should keep in mind that people are going to be looking for places to move where they can keep doing their type of maize agriculture, keep growing the same type of wheat or rice in the same ways," he said. "It's when those niches really start shrinking on the landscape that we start having a major problem, because you've got a lot of people who are used to doing something in one way and they can no longer do it that way."

Story Source: The above story is based on materials provided by Washington State University. The original article was written by Eric Sorensen. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Journal Reference: R. Kyle Bocinsky, Timothy A. Kohler. A 2,000-year reconstruction of the rain-fed maize agricultural niche in the US Southwest. Nature Communications, 2014; 5: 5618 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms6618 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms6618
Cite This Page: MLA APA Chicago
Washington State University. "Localized climate change contributed to ancient southwest depopulation." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 4 December 2014. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141204074309.htm>.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/ban-ki-moon-says-canada-must-do-more-on-climate-change-1.2861362

VIDEO
Ban Ki-Moon says Canada must do more on climate change
UN Secretary General sat down with CBC News
CBC News Posted: Dec 05, 2014 12:47 AM ET Last Updated: Dec 05, 2014 7:37 AM ET

Ban Ki-moon interview with Peter Mansbridge 3:38

At Issue: Ban Ki-Moon on Climate Change and the Oilsands 14:34

UNFCCC COP 20 climate change meeting in Lima
(Note: CBC does not endorse and is not responsible for the content of external links.)

Ban Ki-moon, in an exclusive interview with CBC News, says Canada needs to stop stalling on setting climate change goals, and instead become "ambitious and visionary."

The UN Secretary General, while acknowledging the Stephen Harper government pledged $300 million dollars to the UN's Green Climate Fund that helps developing countries fight climate change, said there's more to be done by Canada at home.

"It's only natural that Canada as one of the G7 countries should take a leadership role," he said in an interview with CBC News chief correspondent Peter Mansbridge on The National.

Part of that change would involve moving away from a reliance on fossil fuels.

"There are ways to make a transformative change from a fossil fuel-based economy to a climate-resilient economy by investing wisely in renewable energy choices," he said.

According to the recent 2014 Climate Change Performance Index, a report from European groups Climate Action Network Europe and Germanwatch, only Australia rivals Canada in terms of its poor climate change record, among 34 countries analyzed.

Ban said there's additional pressure for Canada to act in the wake of the recent deal between the U.S. and China to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2025.

UN Climate Change Conference talks are ongoing in Lima.

Watch the full report, with comment from Canada's Federal Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq. http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/ID/2625937373/

You can also watch the At Issue panel debate the secretary general's comments here. http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/ID/2625937265/

 

[GLG]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Ban Ki-moon, in an exclusive interview with CBC News, says Canada needs to stop stalling on setting climate change goals, and instead become "ambitious and visionary."[/FONT]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/ban-ki-moon-says-canada-must-do-more-on-climate-change-1.2861362

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]PMO office official statement was "I can't hear you my head is in the tarsands"[/FONT]

 

[OldBlackDog]

ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Posted 1 December 2014

"Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) alarm has been with us for a good while, now. The matter seems to become more contentious, rather than less, over time. Unhappily, as a result of the mediocre quality of science education, many people do not know how to evaluate either a scientific hypothesis in general, or AGW in particular -- and irrespective of whatever anyone might think, because of how it is framed and evaluated, AGW is no more than a hypothesis. Science is about ruling things out." Betsy Gorisch explains how and why the AGW hypothesis fails the traditional scientific tests.

Anthropogenic Global Warming and the Scientific Method


By Betsy Gorisch
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) alarm has been with us for a good while, now. The matter seems to become more contentious, rather than less, over time. Unhappily, as a result of the mediocre quality of science education, many people do not know how to evaluate either a scientific hypothesis in general, or AGW in particular -- and irrespective of whatever anyone might think, because of how it is framed and evaluated, AGW is no more than a hypothesis.

Science is about ruling things out. Any good scientific hypothesis will make predictions about the natural world -- ideally, it will predict at least one natural effect whose existence cannot be caused by anything other than the hypothesis being tested. Observations are then made to acquire evidence, and the evidence is evaluated against the hypothesis’s predictions. Evidence can either rule the hypothesis out or not; if the evidence differs from the hypothesis’s predicted effects, then the hypothesis is wrong and is considered to be ruled out, or falsified. That which has not been ruled out by evidence remains possible. If enough confirmatory evidence is accumulated, the hypothesis is elevated to the status of a theory. Scientific Method is, conceptually, no more complicated than that.

Karl Popper, the great philosopher of science, used a simple observational experiment to illustrate the scientific method’s requirement of falsifiability -- the requirement that a hypothesis be stated in such a way as to allow its testing against evidence with a view towards ruling it out. He noted that most people had once assumed that all swans are white. This assumption was based on the observation, over time, of uncounted numbers of white swans -- and each such observation was taken as evidence supporting the assumption. However, there came a time when a black swan was found in Australia, and its discovery served to disprove the assumption that all swans are white. In generalizing from this discovery, Popper understood that you would not test the hypothesis that all swans are white by undertaking a search for white swans -- because no matter how many white swans you found, you would neither have proven, nor even properly tested, the hypothesis. Instead, you must mount an intensive search for a single non-white swan. If you found even one of those, you would have ruled the hypothesis out. Alternatively, and without finding a non-white swan, it remained viable -- but because there remained the possibility of a single undetected non-white swan, it could not be regarded as proven.

Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity provides an excellent real-world scientific example of evaluation by falsifiability. The Special Theory makes unique predictions about gravity's effect on light's behavior in a vacuum that, as far as anyone knows, could be accounted for by no phenomenon other than that assumed in the theory. When specifically tested for during a total eclipse of the sun in 1919, the gravitational effect Einstein's theory predicted was both detected and measured to equal precisely his theory’s prediction. Special Relativity was hence verified -- although, again, it is not regarded as proven. Instead, it remains possible in the absence of having been falsified by evidence. Now, it is true that Special Relativity is, like other theories, commonly accepted, and spoken of, as having been proven. However, that is merely a shorthand way of saying that it currently has no credible competition as an explanation of the phenomenon it addresses.

The AGW hypothesis that so many people claim accounts for what is essentially pretend global warming has never been treated this way. Initially, its proponents engaged in a search for supporting evidence: Elevated average annual temperatures, local glacial retreats, elevated-temperature indicators in proxy systems such as tree-ring records, measurable coincident increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration, and so on -- a search for white swans. But these efforts ignored, and failed even to seek, either any alternative explanations or evidence that would have ruled the hypothesis out. AGW has failed the predictions test again and again; any true scientific hypothesis with so poor an evidence-based evaluation record would have been scrapped by now. Instead, its proponents elevated it to the status of a theory and, ignoring the fact that climate changes continually, renamed it “climate change.”

No other potential causes of AGW have ever been investigated and ruled out. There must be at least one, because evidence shows that there have been times in the pre-human geological past when conditions were warmer and there was no glaciation at all anywhere on Earth. We also know, as a result of ice-core studies, that CO2 has generally been a lagging indicator -- that is, atmospheric CO2 concentrations are documented to have increased after, rather than before, atmospheric temperature increases.

Nevertheless, its believers treat AGW as verified, and simply alter its components and predictions to conform to evidence. When the predicted warming did not occur and snows continued to fall during London winters even though it was predicted that they would fail, for example, or when polar ice sheets expanded even though the theory has predicted that they would melt away, the hypothesis should be considered to have been ruled out by evidence.

However, its proponents still treat AGW as though it were true. Otherwise-reputable scientists employ variations on several approaches to their falsification conundrum. The first of these approaches, the use of models, is a legitimate tool in particular scientific applications. Others amount to attempting to fudge the hypothesis to make it match evidence in an unscientific rearguard action.

Models are essentially used as predictive tools, so they are only as good as the information upon which they are constructed. If there are any unknown components in the modeled system, then the model’s predictions will, almost by definition, be unreliable. In the case of a system both as complex and incompletely understood as Earth’s atmosphere, the model’s construction will essentially be required to include untested, incomplete, and/or unproven function assumptions and data. In such a case, the problems and pitfalls of using these models to construct governing policies quickly become self-evident: People trying to rely on the models essentially cannot know what they are doing. When, for example, their model does not predict their real-world observations, they tweak it until it does -- which introduces errors-by-expectation into both output and the policies based upon it. These errors increase in magnitude, and therefore in effect, in a non-linear fashion directly proportional both to the size of the system and to the modeled outputs.

AGW’s predictions are not being reliably confirmed by observations. When stasis and/or cooling occur rather than warming -- as has been the case over the last decade-and-a-half -- atmospheric scientists fudge interpretations by saying that if it is cool, well, that is just weather; if it is warm, though, that is climate. Alternatively, they claim AGW predicts the cooling -- as, for example, with the recent polar-vortex outbreaks. However, a theory that predicts everything predicts nothing -- because a theory that predicts everything cannot be falsified through testing; nothing will serve to rule it out.

Scientists have also approached the unaccountable stasis and/or cooling by going around and searching for "the missing heat" that their theory assumes exists and claims has already built up. But this is not a search that would test the theory. It is a search that assumes the theory to be true -- it begs the question. Further, if the search detects the sought evidence, no one tries to rule out any possible causes other than AGW, assuming instead that if the evidence exists, there are no other possible causes.

In short, the AGW -- *** -- “climate change” debate is not about a hypothesis -- *** -- theory. Even though no one has investigated it with a view towards falsifying it, evidence has ruled it out repeatedly. It has no useful scientific applications because it has been broadened to predict all possible observations -- thereby predicting nothing at all.


Betsy Gorisch is a professional geologist with an interest in current events

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141203161035.htm

Beer, beef and politics: Findings at viking archaeological site show power trumping practicality
Date: December 3, 2014
Source: Baylor University
Summary: Vikings are known for raiding and trading, but those who settled in Iceland centuries ago spent more time producing and feasting on booze and beef — in part to gain political clout in a place very different from their homeland, says an archaeologist.

Baylor archeologist Davide Zori and assistant at Viking farmstead.
Credit: Image courtesy of Baylor University
[Click to enlarge image]

Vikings are known for raiding and trading, but those who settled in Iceland centuries ago spent more time producing and consuming booze and beef -- in part to gain political clout in a place very different from their Scandinavian homeland, says a Baylor University archaeologist.

The seafaring warriors wanted to sustain the "big man" society of Scandinavia -- a political economy in which chieftains hosted huge feasts of beer and beef served in great halls, says Davide Zori, Ph.D., a Denmark native and archeological field director in Iceland, who conducted National Science Foundation-funded research in archeology and medieval Viking literature.

But instead, what Zori and his team discovered is what happened when the Vikings spent too long living too high on the hog -- or, in this case, the bovine. "It was somewhat like the barbecue here. You wanted a big steak on the grill," said Zori, assistant professor in the Baylor Interdisciplinary Core. He co-edited the book Viking Archaeology in Iceland: Mosfell Archaelogical Project with Jesse Byock, Ph.D., professor of Old Norse and medieval Scandinavian studies at the University of California, Los Angeles.

"It made it really showy -- if you could keep it up." The Viking chieftains used such wealth and cultural displays to flex political muscle with equals or rivals -- plus to cement good relations with local laborers, Zori said.

Zori and Byock's team excavated a farmstead called Hrísbrú in Iceland's Mosfell Valley. The farm -- inhabited by some of the most famous Vikings of the Icelandic sagas -- included a chieftain's longhouse nearly 100 feet long with a "feast-worthy" great hall, a church and a cemetery of 26 graves indicating a mix of pagan and Christian traditions. Males sometimes were buried with ship remnants rather than in the simpler Christian manner of leaving earthly possessions behind.

Carbon dating and studies of volcanic layers indicate the longhouse was built in the late ninth or early 10th century and abandoned by the 11th. The archeological team uncovered 38 layers of floor ash, including refuse dumped atop the abandoned house, also discovering bones, barley seeds and valuable glass beads imported from Asia. "By applying anthropology and medieval texts, we can excavate and compare," Zori said.

Viking sagas, first written in the 13th century and based on oral accounts, included such details as where people sat at feasts, "which shows your ranking . . . These texts read almost like novels. They're incredible sources. They talk about daily life," Zori said.

"Yes, the Vikings may have put axes to one another's heads -- but these accounts also describe milking cows."

High Times and Hard Times
When the Vikings arrived in uninhabited Iceland, they found forested lowlands, ample pastures and sheltered sea inlets. Excavations show that choice cattle were selected for feasts, with ritual slaughter and display of skulls, according to research published by Zori and others in the journal Antiquity. Barley seeds unearthed from floors or refuse heaps indicate barley consumption, and pollen studies demonstrate barley cultivation. Barley could have been used for bread or porridge, but beer's social value makes it very likely barley was used mainly to produce alcohol, Zori said.

Over centuries, as temperatures in the North Atlantic dropped during the "Little Ice Age," being a lavish host got tougher. "Nine months of winter -- and three months that are only a little less than winter," Zori said.

While sheep could find food free range most of the year and were suited for cold, prized cattle had to be kept indoors in large barns during the winter. Savvy supply-and-demand reckoning was crucial to be sure the food lasted -- both for cattle and humans -- and could be preserved.

"They had to decide how many to slaughter and store," Zori said. "They didn't have salt, so they had to use big vats of curdled milk as a preservative." As the landscape changed due to erosion, climate shifts and cleared forests, it became harder to rear larger numbers of cattle.

High-status households also struggled to grow enough grain for beer-making, based on historical accounts and confirmed by a growing body of archeological data. With a shorter growing season and colder climate than in their homelands, Icelandic Vikings would have needed more laborers to improve the soil -- and as the chieftains' power waned, they would have had trouble attracting workers. As barley cultivation stopped, the local chieftains are no longer mentioned in the Viking sagas.

Changing Directions
"You can see in the archeological evidence that they adjusted their strategy and gave it up eventually," Zori said. "It got harder and harder to keep up that showiness -- and when that collapsed, you didn't have that power, that beer and big slabs of beef to show off."

When barley was abandoned, the pollen record shows native grasses for grazing increased. Archeological findings show that the proportion of cattle to sheep bones declined, as Hrísbrú residents shifted to more practical, less laborious sheep-herding.

"You wonder what came first for the chieftains at Hrísbrú: Were they no longer powerful and didn't need barley and beef? Or could they just not keep it up and so they lost power? I favor the second explanation," Zori said.

"What we're doing now is to let the archaeology speak, both for itself and for proof to verify (the texts)," he said. "Investigating politics breathes life into it, instead of just saying, 'Here are three rocks.' You can ask deeper questions."

Zori argues that Viking chieftains' drive to produce expensive beef and beer caused them to put their political aspirations above the greater good of the community.

"Maybe we don't need the Vikings to prove this," he said. "But it shows you that politics can become more important than creating a productive society."

Story Source: The above story is based on materials provided by Baylor University. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

 

[GLG]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Leona Aglukkaq as our Environment Minister.... yea were in trouble. Here is her performance on an issue of our Northern brothers picking food out of the dump so they have something to eat. ... Disgraceful but typical from the governance we have.

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif][XgR62BlHqME]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgR62BlHqME[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]

When asked for comment she replied......
Do you see that comic in the paper? Marduk want's to put a solar panel on the roof of his doghouse..... Doesn't he understand that they don't work at night...... Next thing he will ask is for us to tax the air... that crazy dog.... [/FONT]

 

[GLG]

"Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) alarm has been with us for a good while, now. The matter seems to become more contentious, rather than less, over time. Unhappily, as a result of the mediocre quality of science education, many people do not know how to evaluate either a scientific hypothesis in general, or AGW in particular -- and irrespective of whatever anyone might think, because of how it is framed and evaluated, AGW is no more than a hypothesis. Science is about ruling things out." Betsy Gorisch explains how and why the AGW hypothesis fails the traditional scientific tests.

Reminds me of someone I know.....
Yup Betsy no dog in the fight huh..... $$$$$$$

Betsy Gorisch is a professional geologist with an interest in current events

 

[seadna]

ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Posted 1 December 2014

"Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) alarm has been with us for a good while, now. The matter seems to become more contentious, rather than less, over time. Unhappily, as a result of the mediocre quality of science education, many people do not know how to evaluate either a scientific hypothesis in general, or AGW in particular -- and irrespective of whatever anyone might think, because of how it is framed and evaluated, AGW is no more than a hypothesis. Science is about ruling things out." Betsy Gorisch explains how and why the AGW hypothesis fails the traditional scientific tests.

Anthropogenic Global Warming and the Scientific Method


By Betsy Gorisch
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) alarm has been with us for a good while, now. The matter seems to become more contentious, rather than less, over time. Unhappily, as a result of the mediocre quality of science education, many people do not know how to evaluate either a scientific hypothesis in general, or AGW in particular -- and irrespective of whatever anyone might think, because of how it is....[lots of crap clipped]....


Betsy Gorisch is a professional geologist with an interest in current events

And Betsy Gorisch has how many publications in the field of climate science? Exactly zero as best I can determine from a search of the scientific literature....