Greg Burnham

Greg,

Please explain - to a "nobody".

Is Jim a prominent researcher?

No pun intended here.

Glenn,

Yes. The reason I used the phrase, a "prominent researcher", was two-fold. First, my question applies irrespective of the exact identity of the researcher [Fetzer or otherwise], and second, that the researcher is prominent suggests that they are not as easily immediately dismissed as a complete unknown would be who "offered an otherwise outlandish" claim. However, even a well respected researcher would be hard pressed to garner this much attention and draw this much debate if the claims were, in fact, so easily disproved and/or dismissed as nonsense.

I'm very curious about something. If Jim (or any prominent researcher) had started a thread that supported a claim that JFK had been murdered by....um space aliens, for instance...how much attention would it have received? I think, at first, some of his friends would have tried to "help him" out of concern for his well being perhaps, and that some of his detractors would have rejoiced in his folly and gleefully exploited the opportunity to "throw him under the bus" -- But, then what? More than likely, IMO, the thread would have died out fairly quickly.

But that's not what happened here. This thread is the longest in EF history. If it's all so nonsensical, why? I find it interesting that some of Judyth's detractors claim, on the one hand, that her story is so outlandish as to be easily dismissed as nonsense. Yet, on the other hand, they spend a tremendous amount of energy refuting claims that they characterize as having no merit. Why would it take such effort to demonstrate that something "obviously" ridiculous is ridiculous if it was, in fact, so obvious?

Perhaps there is no merit to these claims. That's not my point. But, if there is no merit to the claims and if they are as completely outlandish as her detractors claim, then why all the effort to refute them?

If ridiculous, it seems like it shouldn't have been that hard.

I'm very curious about something. If Jim (or any prominent researcher) had started a thread that supported a claim that JFK had been murdered by....um space aliens, for instance...how much attention would it have received? I think, at first, some of his friends would have tried to "help him" out of concern for his well being perhaps, and that some of his detractors would have rejoiced in his folly and gleefully exploited the opportunity to "throw him under the bus" -- But, then what? More than likely, IMO, the thread would have died out fairly quickly.

But that's not what happened here. This thread is the longest in EF history. If it's all so nonsensical, why? I find it interesting that some of Judyth's detractors claim, on the one hand, that her story is so outlandish as to be easily dismissed as nonsense. Yet, on the other hand, they spend a tremendous amount of energy refuting claims that they characterize as having no merit. Why would it take such effort to demonstrate that something "obviously" ridiculous is ridiculous if it was, in fact, so obvious?

Perhaps there is no merit to these claims. That's not my point. But, if there is no merit to the claims and if they are as completely outlandish as her detractors claim, then why all the effort to refute them?

If ridiculous, it seems like it shouldn't have been that hard.

For what it's worth, HEMMING believed her. And HEMMING was a hard case--a difficult man to convince of anything. He was probably tougher than most skeptics could ever be. He wouldn't have asked me to give her the time of day otherwise.

Hemming did know a lot but as one CIA insider told me, he was paid by the word. Hemming was one member of the Forum who was a disinformation agent.

John,

In all due respect, I wonder if you ever dared to call him a disinfo agent while he still was alive? I have literally hundreds of thousands of HEMMING's words--and they didn't cost me a dime. If you had been aware of his meager means you most likely wouldn't have said this. If I described his former living condition as "sub-modest" it would still be a drastic overstatement. HEMMING may have been a lot of things, but he wasn't a snitch and he wasn't for sale. For sure...

GJ [Good job] JG.

[...] One interesting revelation I find is that it was recently stated that JVB

did not become interested in the JFK murder until seeing a videotape

of Stone's JFK. I find this peculiar.

I find that more than interesting! It smells of something disingenuous, IMO.

I also find many JVB recent statements incredible. The most recent

is that Ferrie's "underground lab" processed "thousands of monkeys"

in the couple of months of their operation. How was this ZOO managed?

Did all the neighbors notice all the monkeys coming and going?

This is very peculiar.

Jack

I wonder what "processed" means? Perhaps it means "fed to the millions of dogs" we also had there that nobody noticed? I get your point, Jack, and it's another good one, IMO.

I have no answers to any of this, and...as one of those who did meet with her in person, I can only say that she presented herself very credibly to me--even though I was disinclined to believe her from the start.

For what it's worth, HEMMING believed her. And HEMMING was a hard case--a difficult man to convince of anything. He was probably tougher than most skeptics could ever be. He wouldn't have asked me to give her the time of day otherwise.

None of the following has any bearing on "the message" but is an observation about "the messenger" who I personally consider to be a dear friend.

IF an individual [FETZER] has indeed discovered the truth about a subject [presumptive]; and has mastered the appropriate application of both applied and/or pure logic; as well as mastered the disciplines related to critical thinking; and has presented the case in a manner that is consistent with both TRUTH [presumptive] and the skills associated with critical thinking; and presented the case to an audience [White, Lifton & Weldon et al] with whom he has developed a strong bond due to a common respect for the truth; and if said audience has heretofore demonstrated traits consistent with profound integrity even—and especially—in the judgment of the individual [FETZER]; and if the audience consists of a diverse group (as opposed to a single person who might be subject to personal bias) that has demonstrated consistent behaviors in the past… and if ultimately, said audience rejects the presentation of the individual…THEN, all other things being equal, the individual’s presentation did not PERSUADE. End of story.

Rhetoric is an art. Indeed, it is a fine art. It is not logical to look beyond the simplest explanation when the simplest explanation is adequate to the evidence. It might be unpalatable, but--it is what it is.

The evidence indicates that the manner in which the material was presented FURTHER disenchanted an already disillusioned audience. The presenter’s representation of the evidence in question did not initially persuade. Why? Perhaps the stubbornness of the audience was a factor, initially, but it didn't have to be later. Indeed, the most persuasive and best arguments should properly have been offered only after the original resistance that pre-existed the current argument was bested. Why? Only a foolish man ignores the armaments of his adversary especially when they are on public display prior to battle! It doesn't matter how long such besting would have taken because without it the ground was infertile irrespective of the quality of your proofs.

Rhetoric is an art form, Jim. Mistaking it for anything else is a blunder. Remember Phaedrus?

FETZER!!!!!

I'll call you in the morning. Try not to speak until then.

Doug's reasoning was impeccable. Granted, it is based on his personal experience (as he admitted), but that is to be expected. After all, who among us (including you) makes judgments from a vacuum? Nobody. We all (including you) arrive at conclusions that are "less than purely objective" because we're human and our judgments are subjective to some degree. Shhh...Yes, even yours are!

Jim, it is not out of line for Doug to place Judyth's credibility "on trial" so to speak--and apply to her the same rules of examination as would be applied to ANY OTHER WITNESS. THAT IS NOT UNREASONABLE. It is also reasonable for him to observe that she would be a "dream witness" for an opposing attorney--rightly or wrongly--because said attorney would "slice and dice" her to be sure! These are legitimate observations whether you like them or not! And denying they are so--does not change their legitimacy one iota.

Now, none of that means that she is not the real deal. However, vilifying Doug for his opinions and his cogent observations is beneath you.

This is a PUBLIC FORUM. No need to air: Dirty Laundry

Greg

So its ok for Jim to post some silly Psy-Op garbage attacking Jack from an unkown person

Why is it ok for Jim to do that but not ok for Jack?

I dont understand

Dean,

So far, I haven't read any "silly Psy-op garbage attacking Jack" in this thread! Not by a long shot. [if I missed it, please direct me to the exact place, thanks]. In fact, (if a person didn't know and trust Jim already) the fact that his "Psy-Op friend" hasn't attacked Jack is perhaps the best evidence that Jim isn't writing those Psy-Op posts himself! I find it tedious that Jim has to "post for" both Judyth and his anonymous Psy-Op friend, to be sure, but the extent of the effort might be more to Jim's credit than anything else, IMO.

I consider the mind, heart, and intentions of both Jack and Jim to be beyond suspicion.

Hopefully, this venomous exchange will lead to a better understanding of the truth? Hard to imagine...

Some seem to think that JVB is the Virgin Mary reincarnate.

Each person ought to have the right to evaluate her claims.

The verdict is by no means unanimous.

Think as you please. So will I.

Jack

Sorry Jack, but that post totally lost me. The "Virgin Mary" reincarnate? --please. That's a "Virgin Strawman" if I ever saw one!

Jack,

In all due respect, my friend, IMO this is chicken xxxx. It was a cowardly act by the author of the message who was too uncertain of him or her self to claim responsibility for their position (if it can even be called that). It is a very low blow, not to Judyth mind you, but to yourself! Whoever the author is, you might consider the very real possibility that Judyth was not the target of the attack--you were. And, judging from Jim's reaction, it appears that they may have hit the bull's eye.

There is a "signature" to these things, my friend. You know me--and you know my meaning.

GO_SECURE

monk

It seems that most researchers (wisely) do not want to become involved in the thread re JVB. For some reason many of them seem to focus on emailing me to vent their feelings at a safe venue. So far about a dozen have emailed me varying messages about JVB. Here is a typical EXCERPT from one received just today (anonymous for obvious reasons):

"I have believed for years that sexual frustration lies at the root of JVB’s motives – that she is more to be pitied than deplored. The sad but indisputable fact is that she is now overweight and unattractive and was once rather attractive (amply endowed, as she has pointed out on occasion), showing much promise in her academic abilities which never came to fruition. She has lived a life peppered with disappointment, unable to get along with people for more than a few weeks. Every relationship – mostly with men -- eventually goes down the toilet."

There are many other unsolicited emails. They are wise to not enter the public area of controversy. This

has been going on for ten years now, with new supporters taking up the torch when others become

disenchanted. How much longer will it go on?

NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF FRIENDSHIP WITH JACK WHITE, WHO HAS FINALLY DISGUSTED ME

I cannot believe that someone I have admired in the past would stoop to such a sophomoric level by

lodging such a blatant ad hominem. Those who resort to arguments of this caliber have discredited

themselves massively. I denounce each and every one of them, including the author of the post Jack

has repeated her and the hack who posted it. I am completely disgusted and want nothing more to

do with them. Michael Hogan and Howard Platzman are honorable men. Those who resort to such

disgraceful tactics are not. Cease and desist, Jack White. You have forefeitted being taken seriously.

Please know that I want nothing more to do with you in any context at all. We are no longer friends.

Jim,

As you once said to me, "Don't you think that's enough?"

You've made your point. Isn't it also ad hominem to say that Jack is not an honorable man? Almost everyone is slinging mud here on BOTH sides. Why are otherwise reasonble friends claiming to each other: "my mud's less dirty than your mud" as they fling another load?

Perhaps both sides need to cease and desist from allowing their emotions to cloud their better judgment.

Thanks Jack! Yeah, that's me.

A little known trivia: When I was about 4 1/2 or 5 yrs old, my mother bought the Vaughan Meader album, "The First Family" and I listened to it several times a day because my mom loved it so much. I was able to do an impression of Meader doing an impression of JFK so well that my mom had me do it when guests came over! I would just tell the jokes from the album in the "JFK" accent and guests would crack up. I didn't know what they meant or why they were funny--but, there it is.

Then, she bought another album called: "The Red House" which was a satirical comedy album about the Kremlin. Yep--I learned to tell those jokes in a Russian accent! Of course, it was the "height of the Cold War" so those jokes didn't go over as well!

GO_SECURE

monk

Although I have been resisting the urge to further engage in this debate, I just couldn't resist. Please EVERYONE involved in this thread...indulge me by listening to this. Believe it or not, it's very specific to the topic.

Audio clip:

HI-LARIOUS! Worthy of Vaughan Meader! Applause. :)

Is that Monk doing the audio? Comedy! Satire! History! and Double-talk too!

You missed your true calling!

Jack :clapping

Although I have been resisting the urge to further engage in this debate, I just couldn't resist. Please EVERYONE involved in this thread...indulge me by listening to this. Believe it or not, it's very specific to the topic.

Audio clip:

Greg, as you say : talking at cross purposes. I'm talking about Climate Change, you're talking about AGW. I'm not talking of a specific study. I'm touching on many (there are probably hundreds of thousands related ones to look at, as well as simple statistics. So, yes, there is a difference.

Have I made up my mind? Not completely. I look at what I can in a wide spectrum and in this instance, Climate Change, have been following the debate for years, as most people have to some extent. We can throw papers at each other but will always be always lagging in knowledge because the important studies are ongoing.

You have made your mind up just as much, if not more. The use of arcane terms and concepts and truther type monikers like climategate indicate this.

Climate Change is a real concern in the world just as denying it is. It is very much like past studies where something is shown to be so but because it upsets a powerful few it is denied. I understand it took til the 20'th century for the Catholic church to ''forgive'' Galileo.

John,

I'm not talking about a specific study either. That was a typo. I meant to say the DATA and METHODOLOGY used to reach the conclusion by the CRU (among others) was not made available to the public or to scientists outside the inner circle. I thought you knew what I meant.

As for Human caused Climate Change versus Human caused Global Warming, why the distinction? IOW: none of the climate modeling computers predicted any cooling trend as the result of global warming! All the published studies claimed an increase in temperature would happen. Only recently has the term Climate Change been adopted. It is a retrospective prediction of sorts--an oxymoron.

I guess we'll just have to disagree on this issue.

John,

In all due respect, it doesn't appear that we are talking about the same thing. The difference in our approach is simple. I am disinclined to believe the conclusion since the evidence, supporting allegations of AGW, is tainted. However, I'm also unconvinced that the conclusion is definitively proved wrong. Therefore, prior to my deciding the issue is settled, I am forced--as a matter of self respect--to consult the procedures used (for their consistency with scientific method) and research the reports of those who have attempted to replicate the results of those making the positive assertions. The first problem is that the Scientific Method was not employed--or at least it was inconsistently employed--as admitted by some of those who have been involved in the study, including the guy at THE VERY TOP. Secondly, there are no reports published by those outside the inner circle because the METHODS and DATA that were relied upon by the original study HAVE NOT BEEN MADE AVAILABLE.

Unlike what you appear to have done, I have not made up my mind. I simply don't know. However, even if I was inclined to believe in AGW, I would find the evidence of ill conceived practices more than enough to cease defending the theory that has, as of now, lacked real credibility since the proper procedures were not employed--including their refusal to provide the DATA and METHODS that were relied upon to arrive at the conclusion in question! It is impossible to "test" a hypothesis (masquerading as a theory) when the parameters of the experiments have not even been disclosed for replication. This is, at the very least, suspect.

'Climategate' panel set to report

By Roger Harrabin

Environment analyst, BBC News

The row surrounds e-mails hacked from the University of East Anglia

The second of three reviews into hacked climate e-mails from the University of East Anglia (UEA) is set to be released later.

It has examined scientific papers published over 20 years by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the heart of the e-mail controversy.

The panel was nominated by the Royal Society, and climate sceptics forecast it would defend establishment science.

But the BBC understands the panel has taken a hard look at CRU methodology.

It is thought to have focued on statistical methods used by the CRU and the way uncertainties inherent in climate science may have been down-played by government bodies.

Global picture

The review has been funded by UEA and chaired by Lord Oxburgh, a former academic and industry scientist.

The chair has been challenged over his other interests. Lord Oxburgh is currently president of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and chairman of wind energy firm Falck Renewables.

Critics say clean energy companies would benefit from policies to tackle climate change. But Lord Oxburgh insists the panel did not have a pre-conceived view.

The panel includes Professor David Hand, president of the Royal Statistical Society, who has been examining the way CRU used statistical methodology to develop an average annual global temperature.

It is easy to get a measurement precise in space and time from an individual weather station - albeit with uncertainties attached.

But some countries have many weather stations while others have very few, and there are large areas of the Earth with no surface measurements at all.

So to build up a global picture by assigning a proper statistical weighting to the importance of the various measurements is a notoriously challenging task.

Climate sceptics say CRU's statistical methods have been inadequate, and it is thought the Oxburgh panel will look at this issue.

However, if the panel follows the recent House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report into the e-mails it will conclude that the scientists involved had no intention to deceive.

Different practices

The Oxburgh panel also studied how the CRU acknowledged unavoidable scientific uncertainties in its work, especially over research into the Medieval Warm Period.

Climate sceptics complain that the summary reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) do not always properly reflect the uncertainties defined in the underlying science, and the panel may comment on this.

It is also understood that members of the panel have remarked on the difference in practice between university science and industry science.

Many climate sceptics in the blogosphere are former industry scientists. In industry it is routine for original scientific research data to be archived by a records team and kept safe for as long as it might prove useful.

University scientists, on the other hand, are said to be have been more used to a culture in which notes are kept until papers are peer-reviewed - but then are filed in a less rigorous fashion.

This is an area where the House of Commons committee said that academic science needed to improve - particularly in an issue as contentious as climate change.

Members of the panel are said to have cross-examined CRU researchers for a total of 15 man-days.

The final review to be published will be the review headed by Sir Muir Russell, which will, among other things investigate whether the scientists manipulated data.

This is Climate Change. Global warming is a subset. For example (apart from the methane issue in prev post, not CO2, CO2 is part of it, not all of it.) one result of the melting of the glaciers and arctic shelf is the lowering of the temperature of the ocean. A hypothesised result is a critical point at which the gulf stream may cease flowing and the result is the opposite of warming: an Ice age. Sure, meteorologists and schoolteachers and nobodies have opinions. This is nothing but a to and fro driven as alluded to in the first paragraph : ''...tax US citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way: the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate.''. Carbon is a component of greenhouse gases whether it's chloroflourocarbon, methane, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide. It just so happens these are by products of the fossil fuel industrial complex and therefore economics is a core issue. Tax the rich instead. (or eat them)

edit:typos

NO IT IS NOT "Climate Change" -- Climate Change is the cover story. In the 70's it was catastrophic GLOBAL COOLING that was to lead us to doom as a result of human use of chloroflourocarbons. The predictions of that time DID NOT PAN OUT. Not even a little. And how could they? Chaos Theory precludes such predictions. Then there was a brief reprieve from the nonsensical tendency to predict that which is chaotic, random, and otherwise unpredictable.

In recent times it has always been GLOBAL WARMING. That moniker conveniently changed to Climate Change when the empirical evidence [read:reality] was so counter-intuitive to such a concept that it became absurd to cling to it. IOW: It got real cold.

Of course there isn't consensus. Wannabe politician/schoolteachers with PhD in electromagnetics play optics expert and after one year suggest they have qualifications to join other rightwingers to excuse the dominant economic powers from any responsibility in contributing to Climate Change, the very countries that stand to lose from a consensus churn out research to support this...

Well, gee--let's paint a very broad stroke, shall we?

Have you had the time or opportunity, in the short interval since I posted the link, to personally vet the list of those scientists who signed the petition? If so, you might not have made the above post. As an example, one of the most respected members of our local community here in San Diego, is a meteorologist on local KUSI News. His name is John Coleman. He is also the Founder of the Weather Channel. He would appear to be "qualified" to render an opinion.

The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam

By John Coleman

January 28, 2009 (Revised and edited February 11, 2009)

The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax us citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way: the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have led to a rise in public awareness that there is no runaway global warming. A majority of American citizens are now becoming skeptical of the claim that our carbon footprints, resulting from our use of fossil fuels, are going to lead to climatic calamities. But governments are not yet listening to the citizens.

How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government to punish the citizens for living the good life that fossil fuels provide for us?

The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle obtained major funding from the Navy to do measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting post war atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute's areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago. Suess was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle co-authored a scientific paper with Suess in 1957—a paper that raised the possibility that the atmospheric carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. The thrust of the paper was a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle's mind was most of the time.

Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1958 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels. These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.

Back in the1950s, when this was going on, our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution left by the crude internal combustion engines and poorly refined gasoline that powered cars and trucks back then, and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution. As a result a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action.

Government heard that outcry and set new environmental standards. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed, as were new high tech, computer controlled, fuel injection engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer significant polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. New fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced as well.

But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. Roger Revelle’s research at the Scripps Institute had tricked a wave of scientific inquiry. So the concept of uncontrollable atmospheric warming from the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels became the cornerstone issue of the environmental movement. Automobiles and power planets became the prime targets.

Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants flowed and alarming hypotheses began to show up everywhere.

The Keeling curve continues to show a steady rise in CO2 in the atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. Carbon dioxide has increased from the 1958 reading of 315 to 385 parts per million in 2008. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. The percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about 3.8 hundredths of one percent by volume and 41 hundredths of one percent by weight. And, by the way, only a fraction of that fraction is from mankind’s use of fossil fuels. The best estimate is that atmospheric CO2 is 75 percent natural and 25 percent the result of civilization.

Several hypotheses emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. As years have passed, the scientists have kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up.

Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation's bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meetings.

Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations—a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC). This was not a pure, “climate study” scientific organization, as we have been led to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels.

Over the last 25 years the IPCC has been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, it has made its points to the satisfaction of most governments and even shared in a Nobel Peace Prize.

At the same time Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the late 1950's as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.

He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students. This student would say later, "It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!" The student described him as "a wonderful, visionary professor" who was "one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming." That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book “Earth in the Balance,” published in 1992.

So there it is. Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business.

The global warming frenzy was becoming the cause célèbre of the media. After all, the media is mostly liberal, loves Al Gore, loves to warn us of impending disasters and tell us "the sky is falling, the sky is falling." The politicians and the environmentalist loved it, too.

But the tide was turning with Roger Revelle. He was forced out at Harvard at 65 and returned to California and a semi retirement position at UCSD. There he had time to rethink Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect. The man who had inspired Al Gore and given the UN the basic research it needed to launch its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was having second thoughts. In 1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, "My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways." He added, "…we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer."

And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain, and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge, negative impact on the economy, jobs, and our standard of living. Considerable controversy still surrounds the authorship of this article. However, I have discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer and he assures me that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that carbon dioxide was not a problem.

Did Roger Revelle attend the summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California in 1990 while working on that article? Did he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore on this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The answer to those questions is, "Apparently.” People who were there have told me about that afternoon, but I have not located a transcript or a recording. People continue to share their memories with me on an informal basis. More evidence may be forthcoming.

Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam. He might well stand beside me as a global warming denier.

Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle’s mea culpa as the actions of a senile old man. The next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate. From 1992 until today, he and most of his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when asked about us skeptics, they insult us and call us names.

As the science now stands, the global warming alarmist scientists say the climate is sensitive to a “radiative forcing” effect from atmospheric carbon dioxide which greatly magnifies its greenhouse effect on atmospheric warming. The only proof they can provide of this complex hypothesis is by running it in climate computer models. By starting the models in about 1980 they showed how the continuing increase in CO2 was step with a steady increase in average global temperatures in the 1980s and 1990’s and claim cause and effect. But, in fact, those last two decades of the 20th century were at the peak of a strong 24 year solar cycle, and the temperature increases actually may have been a result of the solar cycle together with related warm cycle ocean current patterns during that period.

That warming ended in 1998 and global temperatures (as measured by satellites) leveled off. Starting in 2002, computer models and reality have dramatically parted company. The models predicted temperatures and carbon dioxide would continue to rise in lock step, but in fact while the CO2 continues to rise, temperatures are in decline. Now global temperatures are in such a nose dive there is wide spread talk from climatologists about an impending ice age. In any case, the UN’s computer model “proof” has gone up in a poof.

Nonetheless, today we have the continued claim that carbon dioxide is the culprit of an uncontrollable, runaway man-made global warming. We are told that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a dastardly carbon footprint. And, we are told we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists for this sinful footprint. Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use to protect our climate. The new President and the US Congress are on board. Many state governments are moving on the same course.

We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by the prohibiting of new refineries and of drilling for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On top of that, the whole issue of corn based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies, which also has driven up food prices. All of this is a long way from over.

Yet I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.

Global Warming: It is a hoax. It is bad science. It is high-jacking public policy. It is the greatest scam in history.

Of course there isn't consensus. Wannabe politician/schoolteachers with PhD in electromagnetics play optics expert and after one year suggest they have qualifications to join other rightwingers to excuse the dominant economic powers from any responsibility in contributing to Climate Change, the very countries that stand to lose from a consensus churn out research to support this, yet in your first post you support the notion that Earths climate is fragile, but oh no, nothing that humanity has done has exacerbated this fragility, it's just the sun doing its thing. I'm sure the massive coal industry increase and the reduction in funding in R&D for renewable resources beneficiaries are very happy with that.

Tell you what, I personally hereby give disinterested third parties composed of qualified scientists permission to study the matter. Even Costella.

Well, at least you got me laughing about this normally upsetting topic! Thanks for lightening it up. Seriously, though, I'm not claiming to know for certain the truth about this matter. There are other potential problems, in my view, with the theory as far as I know it. My biggest concern is that the procedures and data used to reach their conclusions have been held secret--and that is a violation of the most fundmental principles of the Scientific Method. When that occurs there is no legitimate "peer review" process at all.

That said, I don't believe that the Earth's climate is "fragile" at all! I do believe it is hyper-sensitive to the influence of the SUN, though.

Thanks for your reply.

Why make this personal? I have not. The point is that skeptics who are QUALIFIED scientists have a standing. Yet, none of them made the original positive assertion! There is nothing for the skeptical scientists to [dis]prove yet, if ever, since the original assertion is based upon flawed methodology and therefore impeaches itself (at least in its present form). Can you not see that?

As an example: If I was a scientist with a specialty in quantum mechanics and I--with a group of similarly qualified scientists--wrote a series of papers that claimed the cause of Global Warming was due to decay in the orbit of the Earth around the Sun, and that the decay was reversable by spending hundreds of billions (if not trillions) of dollars on further RESEARCH into ways of controlling the consumption of green vegetables. Furthermore, I and my group of scientists refused to supply our data and procedures to other qualified scientists in the skeptics corner. How are the skeptics expected to adequately attempt to replicate the experiments?

Now, would proving this theory be the responsibility of those who were making this original, positive, assertion--we'll call them the "Orbital Decay Theorists"? -- Would it be on them to make their case? Afterall, they still believe in AGW, just due to a different cause (not CO2, but green veggie consumption negatively effecting orbit). So should we require them to offer real proof (duplicatable) or should we just buy it (to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars) and force the QUALIFIED scientists who are skeptics to DIS-prove it?

Court of law or not, the answer is obvious...and therein lies the rub. Many people believe that the science is actually settled. Upon what information do they base this belief though? It is clearly not settled when the data used by the scientists making the claim has been witheld from the public and even from other scientists who are attempting to replicate the results! I'm not making this up and it is very important! They even ignored FOIA requests in violation of the law. Why?

It's interesting to note that Gore claims that there is a scientific consensus on the subject. I have two comments to make. The first almost shouldn't count because the second is the relevant one. But, firstly, there is no consensus. The following was signed by over 31,000 scientists (over 9,000 with PhD's) which clearly refutes the claim of a "consensus" on AGW:

Petition Project

Secondly, and most importantly, even if there was a consensus: Science is not discovered by consensus -- It wasn't in Galileo's time and it isn't now. Scientific truth stands or falls on its own merit not by a "show of hands". Yet, in this case the science hasn't even been allowed to be challenged by disinterested third parties composed of qualified scientists because the data and procedures have been kept hidden from all except those within the inner circle, and they stand to benefit from offering their endorsement to the project.

This isn't a court. Climate Change Skeptics draw on studies for their arguments. As you stated above, the burden is on them to scientifically support their conclusions. If they cannot, except by claiming they have no need to do so, they enter the field where as referenced to the indefensible tobacco industries lobby groupings counterstudies have indeed been shown to be peudo science. The Climate Skeptics will enter the dustbins of history just like the pro tobacco lobby has, and, fortunately, Costella and co with them.

=====

Why the climate sceptics are wrong

[...] British journalist George Monbiot has come up with a tactic that is proving effective. He criticised Plimer's recent climate sceptic book Heaven and Earth.

Plimer challenged Monbiot to a public debate. Monbiot agreed — on the proviso that Plimer agree to write “precise and specific responses to his critics' points in the form of numbered questions”. Monbiot sent the questions to Plimer and posted them on his blog on August 6.

The questions present a series of alleged distortions in Plimer's book. Monbiot said he made the selection because: "These statements are either right or wrong, sourced or unsourced. They are critical to your argument. If they turn out to be false, they torpedo your thesis. If your claims are correct, you should be able to answer my questions briefly and easily.”

Again, as I stated above, the BURDEN OF PROOF is on those [AGW scientists] who are making the positive assertion that human activity is causing Global Warming. The burden is NOT on those who are critical of that conjecture. IOW, skeptics need not attempt to PROVE A NEGATIVE. In order to expose the flaw in the original positive assertion, one need only demonstrate the procedural lack of conforming to the Scientific Method employed by those offering the original theory. If additional flaws in the theory exist (and I think they do, but even if they don't) they serve to compound, indeed they serve to confirm, the fundamental flaw of allowing personal bias to dictate "rules of engagement" in which arbitrary cherry picking, if you will, from the Scientific Method's accepted procedures is condoned.

So far Plimer has not answered the questions. The longer he goes without responding, the clearer it is that his claims are baseless. [...]

That is a fallacious conclusion. It is also hypocritical for the author to earlier claim that the refusal of AGW scientists to engage in debate with the skeptics was for the purpose of not giving credibility to pseudo-science, yet, when a skeptic does not immediately indicate whether or not he is willing to accept the terms of a proposed debating format, his claims are summarily dismissed as baseless! One cannot have it both ways. If such lack of response (to an invitation to debate) is tantamount to proof of baseless claims in the one instance, so too, such refusal (to accept an invitation to debate) is similarly proof of baseless claims. The author has cited one skeptic's lack of response as proof of the "baselessness of his claims" but--he has also cited, presumably, the refusal of every AGWist that has ever been invited to debate (which number is far greater than one) as proof of the AGW's interest in safe guarding everyone from pseudo-science! Given the weight of the author's own (albeit flawed) argument, if either side's expressed claims are baseless, it is clearly those of the AGW. My conclusion is founded upon the author's own LOGIC and argument and it is inescapable.

[...]While I don't have any firm opinion on climate change, as weather is something to be experienced and not argued over, Greg's friend John Costella seems to have a lot to say about the subject. - BK [...]

John is relatively new to anthropogenic global warming/climate change [AGW] skepticism. However, I've been fighting this one for over 5 years. He recently wrote a very good paper (IMO) called: Why Climategate Is So Distressing To Scientists

In the final analysis, we probably don't yet have enough reliable data to make a more absolute judgment about AGW. However, we can make a judgment about the validity, or lack thereof, of the process employed by those who are making the assertions. The biggest problem has more to do with the methodology employed by the scientists within the so-called "Climate Science Community" than it does with their personal bias. Nearly all scientists will have some personal bias as a function of the human condition. However, reducing [if not eliminating] the negative correlation such bias potentially would have on discovering the truth, is a main purpose of the Scientific Method. When that process is abandoned the resultant conclusions are not necessarily wrong, but they are certainly unproved. Additionally, if such conclusions are resting upon data whose inception is spurious, and this suspect quality is known to those scientists conducting or reviewing the scientific papers, but has not been disclosed to the public nor challenged during peer review, by way of analogy, it would be tantamount to obstruction of justice in a criminal court. Moreover, the severity of this charge is compounded by the fact that the conclusions WERE challenged by peers within their own camp--and these scientists were ignored and their dissenting opinions were kept out of the final reports.

The case for AGW must be made by those (scientists [not politicians]) "accusing" CO2 of the "crime" of warming the globe. At this juncture, it is unscientific to assume that this trace element is responsible for this "crime". CO2 is not "guilty until proven innocent" as Al Gore would have us believe with his false claim that "there is a scientific consensus"--even though there clearly is none. So, the burden of proof is on those claiming AGW is real. In this case, if compared to the legal system, it would be thrown out of the court room with prejudice. But, it's not the legal system--so double jeopardy doesn't attach and, I fear, this will take a hell of a long time to sort out.

Recent Arctic Temperatures: Unusual or Nothing Special?

Volume 8, Number 2: 12 January 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A long succession of climate models has consistently suggested that CO2-induced global warming should be significantly amplified in earth's polar regions, and that the first signs of man's predicted impact on the world's weather should be manifest there. In the words of Meadows (2001), "the place to watch for global warming - the sensitive point, the canary in the coal mine - is the Arctic." So let's check it out and see just what level of warmth the Arctic has achieved over the past two decades, a period of time during which climate alarmists claim the earth attained a mean temperature that is unprecedented over the past one to two millennia.

Working with the Jones et al. and Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) databases of the World Temperatures section of our website, we have calculated the difference between the ten-year mean maximum temperature of each 10-degree latitude band of the Northern Hemisphere that occurred somewhere between the late 1930s and early 1950s (mid-century Tmax) and the most recent ten-year mean maximum temperature (end-century Tmax) that occurred exclusively over the most recent ten years of the available records (1994-2003). The figure below depicts our results in the form of a graph of mid-century Tmax minus end-century Tmax vs. latitude, where the plotted data points are averages of the Jones et al. and GHCN results, except for the 80-90°N latitude belt, where there were insufficient data to obtain a result from the GHCN database.

As can be seen from this figure, the warmth of the last ten years (1994-2003) was indeed greater than that of the mid-20th century maximum everywhere from the equator to 70°N. In the Arctic, however, from 70°N to the pole, the earlier maximum was greater, and by a relatively large amount.

These instrumental temperature measurements create major problems for the world's climate alarmists. The real-world data either totally destroy their contention that "the place to watch for global warming - the sensitive point, the canary in the coal mine - is the Arctic," or, if this statement is true, they totally destroy their more basic premise, i.e., that CO2-induced global warming is occurring, for they reveal a significant cooling of the Arctic between 1940 and 1998 (the mean midpoints of the ten-year periods used to define the mid-century and end-century mean maximum temperatures of the Arctic), a stretch of time that witnessed the greatest increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration of the entire industrial era: a rise of 60 ppm, which constitutes close to 70% of the entire increase in atmospheric CO2 experienced from the inception of the Industrial Revolution through 1998.

Consequently, in response to the question posed in the title of our Editorial - Recent Arctic Temperatures: Unusual or Nothing Special? - we are forced to conclude they have indeed been nothing special. In addition, it should be obvious to even the most casual of observers that this finding argues strongly against the existence of a CO2-induced greenhouse effect that is anywhere near the magnitude of what is claimed by the world's climate alarmists, as that hypothesized phenomenon appears to be totally overpowered by natural decadal variations of the type that produced the warmer temperatures of the late 1930s to early 1950s and the cooler temperatures of the 1960s and 70s, from which the Arctic has yet to fully recover.

Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso

Reference

Meadows, D.H. 2001. Polar bears and 3-year-olds on thin ice. AlterNet.org. Posted 6 February 2001

Recent Arctic Temperatures: Unusual or Nothing Special?

Global Warming: A Stratospheric Surprise

Reference

Solomon, S., Rosenlof, K., Portmann, R., Daniel, J., Davis, S., Sanford, T. and Plattner, G.-K. 2010. Contributions of stratospheric water vapor to decadal changes in the rate of global warming. Sciencexpress: 10.1126/science.1182488.

Background

The authors write that "the trend in global surface temperatures has been nearly flat since the late 1990s despite continuing increases in the forcing due to the sum of the well-mixed greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, halocarbons, and N2O), raising questions regarding the understanding of forced climate change, its drivers, the parameters that define natural internal variability, and how fully these terms are represented in climate models."

What was done

Solomon et al. used observations of stratospheric water vapor concentration obtained over the period 1980-2008, together with detailed radiative transfer and modeling information, in order to calculate the global climatic impact of this important greenhouse gas and compare it with trends in mean global near-surface air temperature that were observed over the same time period.

What was learned

The seven scientists report that stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000; and their analysis indicates that this decrease should have slowed the rate of increase in global near-surface air temperature between 2000 and 2009 by about 25% compared to what would have been expected (on the basis of climate model calculations) due to measured increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases over the same time period. In addition, they found that "more limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% [above what it would have been without the stratospheric water vapor increase]."

What it means

In their concluding paragraph, Solomon et al. write that it is "not clear whether the stratospheric water vapor changes represent a feedback to global average climate change or a source of decadal variability." In either case, their findings elucidate a hugely important phenomenon that was not previously included in any prior analyses of global climate change. They also write that current climate models do not "completely represent the Quasi Biennial Oscillation [which has a significant impact on stratospheric water vapor content], deep convective transport [of water vapor] and its linkages to sea surface temperatures, or the impact of aerosol heating on water input to the stratosphere."

Consequently, in light of (1) Solomon et al.'s specific findings, (2) their listing of what current climate models do not do (which they should do), and (3) the questions they say are raised by the flat-lining of mean global near-surface air temperature since the late 1990s, it is premature in the extreme to think that we know enough about the intricate workings of earth's climate regulatory system to drastically reduce our CO2 emissions, especially in ways that would radically alter -- and in a negative manner -- the way we obtain the energy that sustains our modern societies.

Reviewed 7 April 2010

CO2 and Temperature: The Great Geophysical Waltz

Volume 2, Number 7: 1 April 1999

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a recent news release, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies declared 1998 to be "a record temperature year," the warmest ever recorded during the period of instrumental temperature assessment. Likewise, in a new analysis of proxy temperature data, Mann et al. (1999) suggest that the past decade may well have been the warmest of the past millennium. And once again (see our Vol. 1, No. 1 editorial: Much Ado About Tiny Temperature Trends), we have the Goddard Institute for Space Studies' James Hansen being quoted as stating that "there should no longer be an issue about whether global warming is occurring, but what is the rate of warming, what is its practical significance, and what should be done about it."

In truth, there is no issue about whether the globe has warmed over the past century or so. Everyone accepts that it has warmed significantly, as the planet has recovered from the global chill of the Little Ice Age. There is also beginning to be a consensus about the practical significance of the warming. Growing seasons have lengthened and plant biomass formation has increased, as a result of both the warming and the concomitant increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. So what should be done about it?

We suspect that very few people would want to turn back the climatic clock to the conditions that spelled the doom of the Viking colonists on Greenland and created extreme hardship in Northern Europe and elsewhere. Likewise, not many people have a problem with longer growing seasons and increased biomass production. So what's all the fuss about?

It's pretty much a tempest in a computerized teapot. For many years climate modelers have predicted that the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content will intensify earth's natural greenhouse effect and boost surface air temperatures to levels that will create all sorts of planetary havoc, melting polar ice caps, raising sea levels, flooding some parts of the globe while turning others to deserts, reducing agricultural productivity, and on and on ad infinitum. And now the likes of James Hanson would have us believe that because atmospheric CO2 and global temperature have both been rising over the past century or so, the rise in atmospheric CO2 must be driving the warming that is asserted to be sure to bring on the worst of the apocalyptic predictions.

In assessing such claims, it is important to remember that correlation does not prove causation, and that causation, if it does exist, may well operate in reverse fashion from what one may have originally thought. Hence, it is important to have as much data as possible when attempting to evaluate claims of causal relationships between different parameters; and the last few weeks have given us a wealth of new data of just the type needed to determine if there is indeed any relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and surface air temperature.

Perhaps the most exciting new data come from Fischer et al. (1999), who examined records of atmospheric CO2 and air temperature derived from Antarctic ice cores that extended back in time across a quarter of a million years. Over this immense time span, the three most dramatic warming events experienced on earth were those associated with the terminations of the last three ice ages; and for each and every one of these tremendous global warmings, earth's air temperature rose well before there was any increase in atmospheric CO2. In fact, the air's CO2 content did not begin to rise until 400 to 1,000 years after the planet began to warm.

Clearly, increases in atmospheric CO2 did not trigger these massive climate changes. In addition, there was a 15,000-year period following the second of the glacial terminations when the air's CO2 content was essentially constant but air temperatures dropped all the way down to values characteristic of glacial times. Hence, just as increases in atmospheric CO2 did not trigger any of the major global warmings that lead to the demise of the last three ice ages, neither was the induction of the most recent ice age driven by a decrease in CO2. And when the air's CO2 content finally did begin to drop after the last ice age was fully established, air temperatures either remained fairly constant or actually rose, doing just the opposite of what the climate models suggest should have happened if changes in atmospheric CO2 drive climate change.

In much the same vein, Indermuhle et al. (1999) determined that after the termination of the last great ice age, the CO2 content of the air gradually rose by approximately 25 ppm in almost linear fashion between 8,200 and 1,200 years ago, over a period of time that saw a slow but steady decline in global air temperature, which is once again just the opposite of what would be expected if changes in atmospheric CO2 affect climate in the way affirmed by the popular CO2-greenhouse effect theory.

So who leads who? In the geophysical dance of carbon dioxide and temperature, which repeats itself every hundred thousand or so years, it is definitely not CO2. Sometimes the two parameters are totally out of sync with each other, as when one rises and the other falls. Sometimes one is in transit to a higher or lower level, while the other is in stasis. And even when they do move in harmony, temperature seems to take the lead.

Clearly, there is no way that these real-world observations can be construed to even hint at the possibility that a significant increase in atmospheric CO2 will necessarily lead to any global warming, much less the catastrophic type that is predicted to produce the apocalyptic consequences that are driving fear-ridden governments to abandon all sense of rationality in the current hysteria over "what should be done about" the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content.

We need to get real about this issue. We need to look at real phenomena that have actually occurred in the real world. And in spite of all the computer simulations to the contrary, we have got to realize what these real data are really telling us. When this is done, the answer comes very simply, as simply as mastering the old-time waltz that the planet has been playing for a quarter million years or more. The key is in the interaction of the participants; when you know who leads, you can avoid a lot of missteps.

Dr. Craig D. Idso

President Dr. Keith E. Idso

Vice President

References

Fischer, H., Wahlen, M., Smith, J., Mastroianni, D. and Deck, B. 1999. Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations. Science 283: 1712-1714.

Indermuhle, A., Stocker, T.F., Joos, F., Fischer, H., Smith, H.J., Wahlen, M., Deck, B., Mastroianni, D., Tschumi, J., Blunier, T., Meyer, R. and Stauffer, B. 1999. Holocene carbon-cycle dynamics based on CO2 trapped in ice at Taylor Dome, Antarctica. Nature 398: 121-126.

Mann, M. 1999. Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: Inferences, uncertainties, and limitations. Geophysical Research Letters 26: 1759-1762

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V2/N7/EDIT.php