Any topic any time. No profanity.

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

No big oil funded here! My friend Terri directed me to this for all you True Believers in the Hoax of "global warming"


I bet none of you TB's will watchig this or even consider it as you have been really brainwashed over the years.  But we keep trying to show you the error of your ways.  The planet's future is at stake as well as the freedom of its people from tyranny.

38 comments:

  1. Fantastic! Totally common sense if you pay attention to everything going on around us now...and before. BMW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This was actually really interesting. Of course he has been marginalized by the True Believers since what he says undermines their hoax.

      Delete
    2. You cannot conduct a debate about global warming by referring to what happens in America.

      Delete
    3. Sure you can./ You guys do it all the time. A little winter storm is now "climate change" AKA global warming. Besides, Coleman says it is politics not science.

      Delete
  2. Thank you Todd for trusting me with this blog. I will endeavor to keep my comments brief and to the point.

    Firstly, I have already dealt with this very video in a different forum, at length. Unfortunately I cannot find my original comments. I would draw your attention to the Express newspaper retraction on Coleman, which was that it mislead the public in describing Coleman as a leading meteorologist.

    "This article originally referred to John Coleman as a top meteorologist; that reference has now been removed."

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/clarifications-corrections/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-global-warming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder

    The second retraction is the one I forced out of this paper, unfortunately not in time for the claim to have spread far and wide across the internet even on to the pages of WUWT. Of course, blogs like that have no responsibility to ensure the integrity of their content. At least we can put pressure on the British press to ensure some integrity.

    It is a shame Coleman himself does not adhere to higher standards of integrity.

    1) Coleman opens with an appeal to authority. Let us not forget he has never actually been a meteorologist, his only training was journalism and he was a front man.

    2) He then cites snow in America in 2013 and 14 and links it to doubting global warming (while not specifically stating the link, he influences the view by inferring a link).
    You must know he is talking about an area representing less than 1.9% of the earths surface, and he proceeds to dismiss the NOAA assertion of a warm year based on cold air covering a miniscule area of the planet and ignores the anomalously warm winter experiences by Alaska at the same time.

    https://accap.uaf.edu/sites/default/files/AK_climate_dispatch_mar14_final.pdf

    3) There is no doubt mankind has damaged this planet that we live on. Climate change aside, we have sequestered nearly 50% of the productive land on the planet and replaced diverse environments with monocultures where we have done so.

    4) He persists in calling himself a "good scientist"...he is no such thing!

    5) He could not even find the word orbit, and uses the word spiral to describe the motion of the earth around the sun.

    6) He then proceeds to waffle before asserting 1 degree of warming since 1978 and no warming since 1998. Now he is reliant only on the RSS data. UAH, GISS and HADCRUT all show warming over the same period. You have to also note he is using the anomalies graph and each record uses different baseline for the anomalies. Even REMSS, the company producing the RSS data acknowledge that there are problems with RSS data. It doesn't cover the polar regions and the Arctic has experienced large anomalous warming over the last decade. He acknowledges none of this.

    7) He calls climate change bad science. He wants all research to stop. Here can I summarise just some of the measurements he wants to stop looking at!

    A) Temperature on all but 1 of the satellite records show continued warming throughout the last two decades.
    B) The one satellite not showing continuous warming shows higher than modeled stratospheric cooling C) All data show increased total column water vapour consistent with the idea of a warming world.
    D) September 2015 Arctic sea ice volume was 65% less than in 1979.
    E) UAH global analysis puts August 2015 30S to 30N an all time record at +52C above the 30 year average
    F) Methane release in the warming Arctic is at record levels and following an increasing trend
    G) Sea levels were stable between 1AD and 1800AD, but are now rising at a average rate of about 3.3 mm/yr and accelerating. (This varies with geographical location)
    H) The PDI on Atlantic hurricanes has more than doubled in the past 30 years.
    I) The accumulated duration of Atlantic and North West pacific storms has increased by roughly 60% since 1949.
    J) 2015 has set new records for category 4 and 5 Hurricanes and Typhoons

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your facts are not dependable. Take hurricanes for instance. Very few and typhoons very few. Since I really don't care about the contrived information from "trie believers" you "facts" are also contrived. It is politics thru and thru. I have seen all this mumbo jumbo before and most if not all has been debunked.

      Delete
    2. You are failing to respond in an appropriate way. The facts are far from contrived, and sticking your fingers in your ears like you do and shouting 'blah' 'blah' 'blah' doesn't make them go away. The intensity and duration of storms is a direct function of the energy they contain. The results support the assertion that the world continues to warm.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. No, I have listened to your ilk's lies long enough to know it when I see it. Not all your BS needs a response.

      Delete
  3. 8) Coleman then goes on to discuss natural variability. He is carefully laying out a straw man argument that the planet always warms and cools. The difficulty anyone should have with this argument is that the drivers of natural change are all well known. Coleman does not acknowledge this infers that current warming is natural. The known drivers do not account for warming experienced in the 20th century warming!

    9) Coleman dismissed ice variation without referring to any data or trends and I have already pointed out how significant ice loss is.

    10) Polar bear counting has been a recent phenomenon, and the rebound of polar bear populations if from an episode of widespread hunting. More and more evidence is accumulating that some populations of polar bears are experiencing problems with achieving healthy body weights.

    11) Antarctic is experiencing warming as well. sea ice in Antarctica is affected by circumpolar currents which are increasing in strength and this drives sea ice increase, Antarctic continues to lose land ice mass at about 3bn tonnes of ice annually.

    12) He dismisses sea level rise ignoring the fact that sea level has been effectively stable for 2000 years until 1800 and has since accelerated and is forecast to continue to do so.

    13) He then makes the statistical error of looking only at US mainland for hurricane data. I repeat the statistic...the accumulated duration of Atlantic and North West pacific storms has increased by roughly 60% since 194 and 2015 has set new records for category 4 and 5 Hurricanes and Typhoons

    14) American data only is considered in his argument on heatwaves. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of a global phenomenon.

    15) Coleman had not looked at this as a global issue. He has presented his own reality in his own back yard.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have no idea where or who is feeding you this stuff about Coleman. I have followed him for years and trust him.

      Delete
    2. It appears most people like yourself are struggling to understand the science and the data. They have no frame of reference so, like yourself, they latch onto a convenient position such as that held be Coleman, because you have trusted him over the years. But please believe me, he suffers the same confusions as you do, he is 75 and really not a scientist.
      He's placed his trust in people like Fred Singer, and Singer is not trustworthy. I don't ask you to change your viewpoint, but consider the viewpoint of other more reliable skeptics, like John Christy or Judith Curry who do know what they are talking about, not idiots like Coleman.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. I suggest if you want to discuss the computer modeling AKA "science" you go over and debate at Watt's Up With That. I have told you I consider this politics. And give the readers here your credentials in science and politics would you please.

      Delete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 16) Now comes the Roger Revelle story. From 1990 in his own words....

    When Revelle inveighed against “drastic” action, he was using that adjective in its literal sense – measures that would cost trillions of dollars. Up until his death, he thought that extreme measures were premature. But he continued to recommend immediate prudent steps to mitigate and delay climatic warming. Some of those steps go well beyond anything Gore or other national politicians have yet to advocate.

    Revelle never failed to point out that there are both established facts and remaining uncertainties about greenhouse warming.

    “We’re clearly going to have a rise in temperature in the next 100 years because of … greenhouse gasses … {but} we don’t know how big it is going to be,” Revelle said in a videotaped interview with University of California at San Diego biologist Paul Saltman in December 1990. “We can’t say whether the temperature rise will be 2 or 10 degrees.”

    While avoiding the word “catastrophe,” Revelle argued that the long-term effect of the predicted warmingwould be “quite serious because of the effect on water resources. … We’re likely to get a large continental area, particularly in the interior of the North American continent, where it gets drier and drier and drier.” He also thought that a small probability of an extremely adverse event, a 10-degree temperature rise, warranted serious action now.

    So in recent speeches and writings, he recommended several kinds of action, including:

    Change the mix of fossil fuels to use more methane and less coal and oil. “Combustion of methane produces about twice as much energy per gram of carbon dioxide as does the combustion of coal, and about 50 percent more than combustion of oil. It is also a clean, relatively non-polluting fuel. We need to expand greatly and to conserve the world reserves of methane, particularly those of the United States.” (American Association for the Advancement of Science, February 1990.)

    Conserve energy. Revelle advocated conserving energy by using the price mechanism (the polluter pays principle) – for example, by increasing the tax on gasoline (Cosmos, 1991). In private, he often spoke of a $1.00 a gallon tax as eminently reasonable, not “drastic.” Who was the last national politician to advocate a $1.00 gasoline tax?

    Use non-fossil energy sources. In the Saltman interview, Revelle reiterated: “I want to see us cut down on use of fossil fuels – coal, oil and natural gas – especially coal … a nasty, dangerous substance.” He advocated instead nuclear energy, which he argued has been safely generated in France because of good engineers and a single design. Again, the switch from coal to nuclear energy was, to Revelle, not a “drastic” step. But who was the last national politician to speak a good word for nuclear energy? Or a bad word for coal? Revelle also recommended that we develop biomass energy from trees, plants and agricultural wastes.

    Sequester carbon in trees. Revelle noted favorably President Bush’s proposal to plant a billion trees a year for the next 10 years, which could accumulate substantial amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Revelle would have been happy to see public spending of several billion dollars annually to promote tree growth worldwide.

    All of us remember our father’s frustration at the White House award ceremony in November 1990, when he received the National Medal of Science. Told he would sit next to John Sununu, a well known advocate of the “wait and see” approach, he was delighted at the prospect of bending Sununu’s ear. When Sununu failed to appear, Revelle was disappointed, saying, “I had hoped to tell him what a dim view I take of the administration’s environmental policies.”

    Roger Revelle proposed a range of approaches to address global warming. Inaction was not one of them. He agreed with the adage “look before you leap,” but he never said “sit on your hands.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Revelle's words are there to read and he actually said what Coleman said he said. So what is the point? I do appreciate you libs in how well you try to bury the opposition in words.

      Delete
    2. When selective quotes are made they can be very misleading. His definition of 'Drastic' action is not what Coleman makes it out to be. I have given you his words.

      If you really want to know about the COSMOS article, it is here

      http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2007/04/if-richard-lindzen-shows-up-at-your.html

      I don't expect it will change the mind of someone holding on to beliefs as belligerently and determinedly as you do, but perhaps you will reconsider how you choose to follow!

      Delete
    3. You interpet it to your biases. Nothing more.

      Delete
  6. Coleman is really dishonest in the way he has put this video together.

    Singers interview has angered greatly the family of Roger Revelle and the contribution made by Revelle to the COSMOS article has been questioned by Justin Lancaster, as student of and Revelles last assistant.

    He has stated for the record ...

    ...I would have skipped weighing in further on this topic, except (1) it seems to never recede into history (it's surfacing in Climate Change discussions on Facebook in September 2014), and (2) my dear cousin Walter, for whom I hold sincere respect, clearly needs an update (I wish he'd contacted me directly before adding to this slog).

    So let's be clear:

    1. Fred Singer is the most unethical scientist, in my opinion, that I have ever met. I said so in the early 1990s, publicly, and I am still confident in the truth of this statement.

    2. The worst decision I ever made in my life was to provide a retraction of my statements in the early 1990s about Singer's nastiness. The retraction was coerced. It was required to stop the SLAPP suit brought against me by a conservative think-tank in Washington that wanted to keep Fred Singer in action.

    3. I was 95% certain that I would win my case in court. But my wife was terrified. In fact, she was terrorized by this lawsuit. We had three young children. I was a Harvard postdoc now needing to find a next academic posting. She was a graduate student at Harvard. My wife was worried about that 5% risk. She was scared we could lose our house and all our assets. We new it would be a 2-3 year ordeal that would drain our resources and attention. The folks at NRDC and EDF chose to not step in; we couldn't afford the $100k+ that the lawsuit would cost. Defending for a year took an enormous amount of my time. That is the meanness and force of a SLAPP suit.

    4. Singer distorted my words in his legal complaint and then even more so in his publication in the Hoover Institution volume. Singer flat out lied in that text about my role (and his wife, Candace Crandall contributed to this smear campaign). This chapter is not a sworn statement.

    5. My testimony about what happened is sworn under oath, under penalty of perjury. I am an officer of the courts of VT, MA, CA and CO.

    6. Everything I said was true. In my negotiations with the 8 lawyers from two national law firms, in which we scripted the retraction, I refused to state that anything I said was untrue. I never admitted to lying, because I never lied.

    7. In the coerced retraction, I allowed that my remarks were "unwarranted," because my mother had commonly used that word when conveying to us that we need not have behaved the way we did. I realized that I could have proceeded more carefully and privately with Singer (which I initially had tried to do) and that I need not have made the issue so public. I also realized that because I was not in Revelle's office during the key session between Singer and Revelle, that I could have let Christa's affidavit and the galley proofs themselves speak the story. (Of course that was already hindsight, as Singer would not provide the galley proofs; I only got them from the Scripps archivist the night before my deposition of Singer).

    8. I regret allowing the word "unwarranted" in the coerced retraction, because in fact my charges were fully justified when made. It was a three-hour negotiation, because Singer's lawyers wanted me to admit that I made false statements, but I refused. When my lawyer and I stood to quit the negotiation, saying "We'll be happy to see you in court in MA," there was a flurry of "Wait, wait," across the table. Eventually we settled on the word "unwarranted."


    cont....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The video was accurate, you just won't accept the truth.

      Delete
    2. This video has some accuracies, it wouldn't work without them. There are also very important inaccuracies, that is where Coleman is being clever. It is the conclusions that are wrong. They are not the correct conclusions from the information stated.

      You have been seriously mislead. Watch the video again, watch it carefully and look for the tricks Coleman employs, they are obvious when you begin to think about them! His whole manner of presentation is encouraging you to agree with him. He comes across like an old fashioned snake oil salesman worming his way into your pocket.

      Try watching this video!

      https://youtu.be/ZpcwyeGQlA8

      I did watch your video!

      Delete
    3. I have watched numerous videos. I am sure the authors of each one has their biases.

      Delete
  7. 9. I never worked for Al Gore, I was not in any way involved in his political campaign and I had nothing to do with Gore's office other than getting a clip from him for a film on Roger's career that was shown in a film at the Rio Earth Summit. My entire focus was on a wrong being done to Roger Revelle's career and Roger's concern for the Earth environment and for humanity.

    10. I had formed, in 1987, a non-profit named: "Environmental Science & Policy Institute (ESPI)," ESPI was the only non-governmental organization presenting scientific results at the 2nd World Climate Conference in Geneva, where I served on the Synthesis Committee. ESPI was an NGO registered at the Earth Summit. I was speaking widely at Dartmouth, Harvard, UC and other fora on the science and policy related to the carbon dioxide problem. I served on the NOAA Citizen Advisory Panel and was the first Chair of the Global Change Working Group within the Society for Risk Assessment.

    11. Fred Singer started his "Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)" in the early 1990s, practically in direct opposition to ESPI.

    12. Singer was associated with an energy-industry-backed cabal, comprising of at least Patrick Michaels and Robert Balling, and loosely coupling Hugh Ellsaesser, Richard Lindzen and some others. I was known to most or all of these folks through face-to-face encounters academically and in governmental meetings.

    13. I had hoped that, after having been found with his hand in the cookie jar, Singer would have the good grace to leave this sordid issue in the historical dust bin. Giving him the retraction and apology I hoped would be sufficient. But it was not and he did not put it down. Instead he raised this issue prominently in the public eye, publishing my retraction in newspapers and blatantly misrepresenting the history in the Hoover chapter. And his cabal echoed it all widely to their key blogging network. And that has continued to cascade through many blogging layers, for now more than twenty years!

    14. In 2006, when Gore has published his "An Inconvenient Truth," this all erupted again, and I determined that enough is enough. I publicly and unequivocally repudiated and retracted the earlier "Retraction" that had been coerced, and I published the court documents and supporting affidavits and documentation so that people could read it for themselves.

    15. The documentation is available online at Cosmos Myth

    16. Singer and his supporters did not respond to my 2006 publication because they have no case. AGW is an issue of public concern. Singer is a celebrity in this field, perhaps the leading contrarian, skeptic, denier at the head of the pack for almost two decades. There are no objective canons of ethics in science (unlike for lawyers), so my charge of unethical can only mean "in my opinion" and "based on my standards." Not only do I believe my statements to be true, I have substantial evidence backing them up. And, we now have anti-SLAPP legislation in Massachusetts.

    17. This entire episode has been investigated by journalists, described in chapters in two books, become the subject of a play and other media. Despite the bloggers who seem to continue to enjoy piling on the smear while ignoring the factual evidence, I'm comfortable with the outcome of the former more careful and thorough inspections.
    ***************************************************************************************************************

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is recent evidence that all you have written here is debunked by a Aussie scientist etal.

      Delete
    2. No, he can't show you. He never does.

      Delete
    3. It was in all the newspapers this last week. Perhaps you should take your skills and check it out. And Steve, you sure are a chicken now.

      Delete
  8. ....
    17) The Oregon petition Coleman refers to has next to no real climate scientists on it and has in fact been long since dismissed as ridiculous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

    18) Coleman the fills out the video repeating the same assertion over Revelle. It is one of the worst cases of misrepresentation of the views of a dead man I have ever seen. I would remove this video from the internet it is so awful and I'd recommend you to do the same!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anyone this longwinded can only be Frisch. LOL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No this fellow actually responded to my comments from the Union and I think he lives in the east. I pressed him for his credentials and ghe resisted . Then we exchanged some yapping on FB. He has no science background but is simply a True Believer. Frisch would not have the intelligence to write this much defensive mumbo-jumbo.

      Delete
    2. So how would you go about criticising my critique. It's nice to use a phrase like defensive mumbo-jumbo, but the fact is, all of this is mumbo-jumbo to you, I have not seen you present a single pieces of science based evidence supporting your viewpoint yet. It would make a refreshing change!

      Delete
    3. The science is in my favor. No "warming" for 18 years. Everyone agrees. You are the outlier here. All I can conslude is you are unable to discern truth from BS. Even your own tax payer paid for scientists are now on board.

      Delete
  10. I thought it was Frisch too....same type of programmed mentality doing their job spreading misinformation. So who do we believe? And as Hillary says, "What difference does it make?" They can say whatever they want, punish and steal from working people but as always the earth and sun are in charge. Perhaps the one achievement from all this is the inspiration of new and better inventions. BMW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Point out any inaccuracy you find! I'm quite happy not to use ad hominem argument without cause and talk about evidence. Your chatter here shows you to be better at gossip than science!

      Delete
    2. What are your credentials? I have asked numerous times. Are you afraid?

      Delete
  11. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you want to criticize and attack moi, you must use your real name. Otherwise I don't give a crap.

      Delete

Real name thank you.