“‘Cloud feedback’ will play major role in global warming: Study”
http://sify.com/news/cloud-feedback-will-play-major-role-in-global-warming
However ….
A small negative feedback is possible
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6010/1523.short
You can’t make this stuff up …..
but you can sure milk it!
Guess they missed the memo to not admit any uncertainty!
and why have you not posted the REALLY big news from Yesterday that totally disproves ACC
Its not the uncertainty, its the circular logic and double talk. He states clouds probably have a positive feedback. Of course, this flies in the face of conventional wisdom and common sense, but ok, Later, when pressed, he admits that it really isn’t positive feedback, but less of a negative feedback, (WUWT yesterday)but not before he states his “vicious cycle” nonsense. Under his scenario, clouds are less prevalent and less effective at cooling when it warms……….ok, if that’s true, then the earth has melted several times before man invented the wheel, with no vehicle to cool the earth. And then, if that’s true, then the antithesis must also be true in that when it cools, clouds cool even more and then we’d be stuck in a permanent ice age. Under his scenario, there is no end game, just either continued heating or continued cooling.
To test part of his hypothesis, on a hot sunny day, have a cloud pass over and see how much hotter it gets. 😐
You guys have a great night.
1000+ disagree.
No climate consensus as over 1,000 scientists dissent
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9054/Update-1000–Scientist-Report-Presented-to-UN-During-Climate-Summit-in-Cancun
And all these 1,000 scientists have had papers rejected by the peer review process?
Tony,
Do you think 30 million Germans conspired for the holocaust? Or did 29,999,990 of them just go along with it because it was the safe thing to do.
the analogy would actually be with the military.
Were people in the military aware of what was going on? I think it becomes fairly clear by the beginning of the war that the extermination of the jews was official policy. And what would happen to any officer that suggested this was wrong?
they ALL had plenty of evidence from personal experience of seeing people who objected to NAZI policy did not survive very long.
As such this is similar to Lysenkoism in the scientific realm. What kept both “experts” and populations from speaking the truth or doing anything about it was the very real fear of death. that is not the case in this situation. At least you have not documented any climate related murders since I have started reading.
Have Lindzen, Spencer, Pilke, Curry, or Willie Soons lost their jobs? has Moncton had his family threatened by men in dark sunglasses?
I state again, that this is the largest scientific fraud ever perpetrated with tremendous consequences for the entire planet. And you think that thousands of scientists are either too stupid, too scared or uninterested to use the peer review process to actually present the truth.
I’m 97% certain that you don’t understand what you are saying Tony.
Steven:
You still have doubts?
well then once again this is such obvious fraud or incompetence that any honest scientist will see through it immediately.
you keep posting dozens of posts that show just how ridiculous these climate scientist claims are. You keep describing what happened under Lysenko, so it has to fall apart completely and very soon.
After all the the vast majority of scientists do not get funding for climate research.
It will be like shooting fish in a barrel
You are exactly what The Emperor’s New Clothes is about. You see the truth laid bare before your eyes, but you cling to your belief in authority to the bitter end.
Steve,
I see the truth you lay before my eyes, and I don’t blindly accept it because you say it.
What I don’t accept is that you have this overwhelming documentation of fraud, and you are not getting it published in peer reviewed journals.
There HAVE to be qualified scientists that can totally verify all your proofs and write them up.
Don’t you think it is important to get the science back under control of competent hones scientists?
No doubt the mafia will clean up Chicago.
Are you saying there are not thousands of competent scientists that can verify your mountain of evidence who are not in thrall to the climate fraud?
I am talking about going outside of Chicago to clean up the mess.
and as I have said numerous times, it is not possible to maintain such a widespread fraud because it impacts on so many disciplines.
TonyD:
What is and has been happening regarding the research into global climate?
When you answer that you answer your stupid questions!
Yes it is like asking a corrupt political machine to study the corruption. It could also be similar to claiming a thief can not get a fair trial unless the jury is only composed of thieves. A person is guaranteed a trial by jury of his peers. The jury for a murder trial can only be composed of murderers.
Mike,
why are neither you nor Steve answering my question?
You are saying that this is a conspiracy of the entire scientific establishment, that is obvious to well informed amateurs. That means it must be obvious to many many thousands of scientists who are qualified to dispute the fraud in the peer reviewed literature and who are NOT ideologically or financially compromised.
Why do these scientists not submit the corrections to the obvious fraud in peer reviewed journals.
Conspiracy? No
Everyone is drinking at the same trough. Yes.
one could say the same thing about the faked lunar landings.
How can you NOT say this is a blatant conscious conspiracy?
How is it that you and others on here see the truth so clearly, and document the lies, manipulation and outright fraud and so many thousands of capable scientists who have no financial or ideological pressure be so uninterested in stopping the biggest scientific scam in history with such terrible consequences if it is not exposed do nothing.
the established procedure for determining scientific validity is in the peer review system, you are apparently blowing that off. If the peer review system in EVERY branch of science relevant to climate change is so corrupted that the obvious fraud you present here is blacklisted, then tens of thousands of scientists around the world would be aware of it in their specific fields.
The ONLY comparable situation this is analogous to is Lysenkoism, and that was enforced by the clear threat of death or siberia, or at least the total ruin of ones career. No scientist now faces any of those outcomes by telling the truth. After all there are millions of Americans that believe this is a scam, and any scientist pointing out the obvious fraud would have to have their work reviewed by other competent scientists, and would have to lie in an obvious way in order to prevent publication.
I believe that is unsustainable without the type of coercion under stalinism. There is no historical precedent for this level of fraud WITHOUT the fear of death. when all that needs to be done is have the actual truth published.
How is it that you are so oblivious to the nakedness of the emperor?
Global Governance is GO!
Cancun climate summit agrees deal
UN talks in Cancun have reached a deal to curb climate change, including a fund to help developing countries. Nations endorsed compromise texts drawn up by the Mexican hosts, despite objections from Bolivia.
The draft documents say deeper cuts in carbon emissions are needed, but do not establish a mechanism for achieving the pledges countries have made.
…
The Green Climate Fund is intended to raise and disburse $100bn (£64bn) a year by 2020 to protect poor nations against climate impacts and assist them with low-carbon development.
A new Adaptation Committee will support countries as they establish climate protection plans.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11975470
Rather proves that it was never about the climate at all.
Russia + Japan will totally ignore Kyoto.
“Russia and Japan have secured wording that leaves them a possible route to escape extension of the Kyoto Protocol’s legally binding emission cuts, while strongly implying that the protocol has an effective future – a key demand of developing countries.”
And China + India will carry on increasing their CO2.
“Developing countries will have their emission-curbing measures subjected to international verification only when they are funded by Western money – a formulation that seemed to satisfy both China, which had concerns on such verification procedures, and the US, which had demanded them.”
Here is the joke. Putting the best face possible on an epic failure.
http://www.wral.com/news/technology/story/8762999/
Dressler was honest in his wording! Clouds will and have always had a major impact on global warming! Without clouds we would not be here to talk about the weather / climate as they are a major part of the restrictive force in natural climate control.
my favorite part was that the one objection came from the Bolivians who said that the deal was too weak to accomplish anything and a threat to the entire planet
The same Bolivians that Steve was holding up as daring rebels, willing to expose US corruption.
For any university scientist in need of funding, the pressure to tow the line is enormous. For any scientist anywhere who doesn’t want to risk being an outcast, the pressure to parrot the party line in enormous. Whereever huge money is, huge corruption follows. I hardly believe that the peer review process is immune from human nature!
then obviously there is no real science. It is all just propaganda that is perpetrated by the ruling scientists who will tolerate no dissension on any issue.
find one comment where I have suggested that science is perfect and there is no corruption or deceit in science.
There is a difference between what you are suggesting which would be the biggest fraud in scientific history, and the fact the the culture of science has problems due to the fact that scientists are human.
You are in need of some Zen philosophy, as you appear to need to think of the world as being black or white.
How many people are willing to give up their livelihood and reputation? Most will push their BS to the bitter end. That is how many religions survive.
that is not all that far from the truth
consider the reams of money being thrown into ‘climate science’
consider the reams of money governments, banks, and corporations intend to make off carbon tax and trade.
that is a very large elephant to move
what i don’t get tony is you always seem blind to facts, and do consistently fall back on authority. i accepted AGW also until i became aware of the facts.
Peter,
I have not ever fallen back on authority in these comments.
what I don’t get is that literally thousands of scientists who have the training and intelligence and background to understand the details, and who are not financially beholden to the irresistible pull of grant money are unwilling to do anything about a totally corrupt and fraudulent agenda that has totally hijacked the entire peer review process and every major scientific organization in the country.
It makes no sense to me, especially since ei know climate scientists, have talked to them, they have answered every question I have asked them, are very clear about what they are sure then know, what they think they know, and what they really don’t know. the ones I have talked to have given every indication of honesty, have never lied to me, their information has almost always checked out exactly as they portray it, and yet, I am to take the word of people on this blog who do NOT know them, call them idiots or grant whores (expect I think I might have just coined that. Feel free to use it, but please attribute it accurately), proclaim the largest scientific fraud in history, and yet say it isn’t really a conspiracy, but that the fraud is something any high school student could see.
Who say the entire peer review process has been corrupted, but this isn’t a conspiracy. Who say that the climate gate emails, which I have read and gone over MANY times, say things that do not fit with my readings of them.
that is not falling back on authority. that is being totally perplexed that people who have a very obvious truth are unable to get scientists to publish that truth in the accepted form for EVERY SINGLE SCIENCE IN THE WORLD! That being the peer review process
So snow is a “thing of the past” after all. And Manhattan is underwater.
Steve,
show me where ANY peer reviewed science says “snow is a thing of the past, and. though I have a feeling we have covered this before, manhattan will be underwater.
You are like a pit bull with even your most meaningless comments.
And I am still wondering why you are ignoring the news of the peer review proof that ACC is a fraud that came out yesterday?
Are you a bot?
I notice no one ever answered my bot test, in another post when I was getting totally irrelevant comments.
tony, your entire reply is an appeal to authority
i don’t doubt your friends are honest or believe what they are doing is correct. so do 1 billion catholics.
and consider the context. julienne stroeve once posted, “i rely on the temperature guys for that.” talk about being screwed.
and in my experience, the more expert someone is the more disconnected from reality they are, lost in the details and complexity of their expertness. they are likely oblivious to any context
as a philosopher i spent countless hours arguing expert scientists right around in a circle…often they chose to accept certain attitudes, but more often they simply believed what they were taught and as experts were totally insulated from other fields, disciplines, and reality in general. they were not dishonest or corrupt.
on a climbing trip in france i happened to start talking to a guy over the morning espresso. we ended up arguing about some fairly esoteric problems in physics over several loads from the bialetti, and finally i say, “okay look, there is this guy named Bertlemann, and Bertlemann…”. He interrupts, and turning beet red replies, “Bertemann! I work with Bertlemann!” Which means i had just spent 2 hours arguing with someone who worked at CERN, with Bertlemann and john Bell himself! in this case we both agreed we simply had different philosophical positions.
Peter,
if you are a philosopher then you are clearly are that I am making no appeal to authority.
I am making an appeal to the peer review process, which is the standard procedure for determining the validity of scientific research.
I am not denying any of the assertions Steve, Mike or others make, unless I have knowledge that contradicts it.
again if you are a philosopher, making the comparison between catholics believing the precepts of the Catholic church and scientists believing ACC has so few correlations that it is virtually useless unless you state the specific correlation and support for it.
Again if you are a philosopher making general statement about your experience arguing with scientists has limited value when discussing the wholesale corruption of numerous interconnected fields of science. I do not argue with your experience that specialists are often clueless about anything outside their discipline and that this can lead them to believe things that are wrong. I remember talking with someone who was involved in research with plasmas physics at Ohio State, and he hardly knew what the Copenhagen interpretation was. THAT shocked me.
This is the largest scientific fraud ever perpetrated, and there is a huge political polarization around the issue.There is no threat of death or ruin, so I don’t see why, if the fraud is as obvious as everyone here says it is, that thousands of scientists, who are better qualified than I am, with no financial or ideological connection do not expose the fraud by publishing in peer reviewed journals all the voluminous exposés of fraud that are daily posted on this blog.
This has nothing to do with appeal to authority, but is questioning how something so important with such clear consequences could lead to such apathy on the part of almost the entire scientific community including every major scientific organization in the country.
If this was a totally frivolous issue, where there was no major consequences, or policy issues in question, I could see that your point would be valid. Most scientists would just accept the authority of neighboring disciplines and a moderately large mistake could be maintained without much scrutiny.
That is totally not the case with ACC. it has gotten more publicity than any scientific theory in history, probably including relativity. So it is not possible that anyone involved in climate science would just accept blindly without considering the explanations offered by deniers.
what you are proposing is totally internally inconsistent. There cannot be fraud where people are deliberately changing data that does not support their preconceptions over a wide range of disciplines and my acquaintances still be honest and believe what they do. Not in a situation such as this.
Actually a valid Catholic corollary would be that 1 billion catholics continue to believe that Jesus died as the Son of God on the Cross for man’s sins. when there was archeological/historical evidence showing that Jesus had bribed the Romans, and actually substituted someone for him in exchange for a villa in tuscany.
very well you have generalised your appeal to authority from “i have two honest friends who are climate scientists in whom i place trust” to “peer review means 2,3, or 4 other people i don’t know personally but i believe are totaly honest okayed it and therefore i trust the results”.
i believe the issue is trust, which is still an appeal to authority. just look at the facts yourself. that is why i mentioned stroeve – she trusts absolute charlatans and that skews her research.
i keep bringing up 1 billion catholics because their belief in their paradigm is the same as a scientists acceptance of the paradigm in which he/she is working. most humans simply prefer belief over reality. even so called empirical scientists. challenge their beliefs and watch the epicycles multiply.
while a core group of scientists perpetrate downright fraud the vast majority are most likely just what you call ‘grant whores’, the system is simply corrupt. there is just too much money behind climate alarmism. peer reiew and funding in other sciences might be just as biased, but there is not the collossal amount of money behind the dominant paradigm in other fields.
There is no threat of death or ruin, so I don’t see why, if the fraud is as obvious as everyone here says it is, that thousands of scientists, who are better qualified than I am, …… do not expose the fraud by publishing in peer reviewed journals all the voluminous exposés of fraud
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
http://www.petitionproject.org/ – 31,000 scientists who do not accept CAGW
http://climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims–Challenge-UN-IPCC–Gore
and simple fact to proves CAGW impossible
http://www.google.com/images?q=logarithmic%20co2&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1024&bih=638
lubis motl takes a closer look;
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/05/hyperventilating-on-venus.html
My belief is that when you are dealing with a controversial issue where there is some truth on both sides (but all the money is on one side) most people will go with what is in their best interest. That doesn’t necessarily mean that there is a vast corrupt organized conspiracy of some kind. That’s human nature.
So you believe because there are orders of magnitude more money in the petrochemical field than alternative energy that people parroting ideas in their interest are not to be taken as totally open and honest?
TonyD:
How dense can one get?
The Petrochemical companies are the leading promoters of Biofuels and Carbon taxes because they will be able to rake off their share from the top.
You seem to have little understanding of how business works. The end users pick up the tab with the producers keeping a handling fee for doing the math and passing the fees and costs to the consumers.
You seem to be like all those that want to tax the corporations because of the money they make. It is just taxing the middle class end user. Those on government hand outs receive additional funding to cover the taxes that are passed down and the upper classes just raise the cost of their services to the middle class.
The monies being used to promote ACC and its offspring are all tax deferred and seed money for future business. Some also provide funding for the alternate view to appear unbiased!
The majority of funding is going to ACC.
Then WHY would these companies give ANY money to republicans or any one that did not support the cap and trade bill? The oil companies should be ferociously funding Inhofe’s democratic opponents. I just checked and he is a major receiver of oil industry money every year.
You are right. They WILL make out… eventually.
At the moment however the carbon industry is in the many trillions of dollars range, and the renewable energy is in the, at most hundreds of billions worldwide. Why accelerate the changeover when the prospect for more expensive and complicated ways of continuing carbon fuel dependance can be extremely profitable for decades. And they can feed at the teat from both ends!
If you were right there would be much much more money put into R&D on renewables in the oil industry. With hundreds of billions in profits most of the research money goes to new technology for oil, gas, coal and other types of extraction.
But they do fund very important research that will probably have tremendous positive impacts regardless of whether ACC is right or wrong.
But as long as solar is 10x more expensive than cheap coal they have no incentive to discourage carbon based fuel usage.
Also WHY would the chinese support ACC or policies supporting that. They are the largest emitters of GHG and the worst polluter by far. What is their incentive for believing the lie?
and then you make assumptions about my beliefs about how corporations should be taxed based on ideological grounds, when I am pretty sure you have no clue what my ideological perspectives are.
So far you have done a piss poor job of following the money.
Why are the bank and insurance companies promoting ACC?
China stands to be one of the major recipients of production dollars because they provide the materials due to EPA regulations that were claimed to clean up the US amd ECO groups forced manufacturing out of most developed countries along with energy exploration.
Actually IDGAF about your beliefs as you show that you are clueless about the BIG PICTURE.
I also expect to see India become competitive with China because they also have little regards for Human Rights. Slave Labor is cheap! The work force in many developing countries lives in worse conditions than the slaves on the farms in the South before the Civil War.
There are still slave shops in place in the US using undocumented visitors from other countries. Those are run by new citizens bringing over workers from their former countries and even undocumented visitors that run some operations.
Why are the insurance companies supporting ACC.
Apparently the totally ludicrous explanation is that they stand to lose shitloads of money from weather related payouts.
You of course are going to provide me with the real answer.
And China could completely torpedo any movement toward action against ACC, then just burn as much cheap coal as they want. I thought all these regulations on Carbon fuel production were going to destroy our economy.
You forgot to include all the major corporations who have pocketed huge profits from outsourcing in your equation about manufacturing.
But I guess you think the unions were right opposing NAFTA and various free trade agreements.
And it is ALL those mexican owners of agriculture and slaughter houses in the US that are responsible for the immigrant slavery.
Yeah, those slaves had it pretty easy. Lazily picking cotton and then dancing for their massa’s in the evening. just an occasional whipping for talking about what papa was doing with the pretty house slaves.
banks and insurance companies are one and the same. and they hope to make a bundle in a ‘carbon market’. that is also how many green and ‘left’ NGO’s have been bought off…they hope to make a bundle in the ‘carbon market’
both those agreements proposed, and those so far agreed, give china a pass. so everyone else will simply move their production to china, where there are no environmental controls whatsoever.
or labor controls. and yes, ‘free trade’ has already moved most of our production to foreign slave labor markets. oppose unions? move to ciudad juarez and see how you like the living and working conditions. that is where our jobs went.
except mine. it went to shanghai. i offered to move to shanghai but boeing wouldn’t have it. so much for ‘free’ trade.
The last I heard, a lot of petrodollars (maybe most of them) were going into the AGW side. They were certainly not going to be left out in the cold. Correct me if I’m wrong.
http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2010/12/02/the-nitty-gritty-of-diamond-polishing.html
Scientists discover the workings of the most toxic chemical known to man
Tax Diamonds!!!
There’s too much of a stockpile of them, maybe this has caused the carbon imbalance on earth?