Articles Tagged "Reply To Article"

It's not often our "reply to article" section comes up with a retrospective reply to one of the main opposition, this time Al Gore has tried to put forward.......Climate deniers often cite the expanding sea ice in the Southern Ocean is evidence that the climate crisis is not occurring"....and then states that "It turns out the opposite is true in his articleAnother Climate Denial Myth Answered

The following article from Bob Tisdale seems to have many if not all the answers for Al Gore, lets hope either he or his friends are shown the error of their way!

On Liu and Curry (2010) “Accelerated Warming of the Southern Ocean and Its Impacts on the Hydrological Cycle and Sea Ice” by Bob Tisdale

The Liu and Curry (2010) paper has been the subject of a number of posts at Watts Up With That over the past few days. This post should complement Willis Eschenbach’s post Dr. Curry Warms the Southern Ocean, by providing a more detailed glimpse at the availability of source data used by Hadley Centre and NCDC in their SST datasets and by illustrating SST anomalies for the periods used by Liu and Curry. I’ve also extended the data beyond the cutoff year used by Liu and Curry to show the significant drop in SST anomalies since 1999.

Preliminary Note: I understand that Liu and Curry illustrated the principal component from an analysis of the SST data south of 40S, but there are two primary objectives of this post as noted above: to show how sparse the source data is and to show that SST anomalies for the studied area have declined significantly since 1999.

The following letter was sent to the Houston Chronicle by a Robert Curl who turns out to be Kenneth S. Pitzer-Schlumberger Professor of Natural Sciences Emeritus at Rice University. He shared the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1996.....your see a follow up to this below from several "skeptics" including Edwin Berry, enjoy!

The Houston Chronicle recently published an op-ed by the former astronaut Walter Cunningham "Climate change alarmists ignore scientific methods", Page B10, Aug. 15). The tenor of his piece was that the scientists concerned about climate change were an unscientific fringe group outside the mainstream of science. I quote: "It [anthropogenic global warming] has gained little acceptance among legitimate scientists." Cunningham's article assumed a tone of authority, but obviously his researches into the subject were not thorough.

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) was incorporated in 1863 by an act of Congress to serve the nation by providing advice on scientific matters. It consists of approximately 2,100 members (out of approximately 1 million U.S. scientists) and 380 foreign associates. Of the 2,480 members, nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. U.S. scientists consider election to the academy one of the greatest honors they can receive.

For 147 years the NAS has jealously guarded its reputation for providing unbiased advice to the nation on scientific matters. This august organization is deeply concerned about the consequences of anthropogenic climate change, and has carried out several detailed technical studies on this matter. You can download free a layman's explanation, Understanding and Responding to Climate Change, from the National Academy's website at http://dels-old.nas.edu/basc/climate-change/ in order to obtain the most authoritative information on the subject.

Walter Cunningham responds to Robert Curl, who authored an article criticizing Cunningham's Houston Chronicle article, "When You Don't Have the Facts, Appeal to Public Opinion."]

The subjects and style of my writing attracts rebuttals. I usually resist the temptation to respond, but the article by Robert Curl, Kenneth S. Pitzer-Schlumberger Professor of Natural Sciences Emeritus at Rice University and Nobel Prize Winner in Chemistry is just too good to resist. His article is typical of academics with all those advanced degrees, and who know what is best for the rest of us—if we would just listen. In typical global warming alarmist fashion, it attacks the credentials, the economic interests or the politics (or all three) of those who disagree with them, and does not cite any empirical data that would prove their critics do not know what they are talking about.

After citing the National Academy of Sciences endorsement of AGW, Professor Curl emphasizes the credentials of the members and claims the NAS is “objective.” Maybe we’re supposed to ignore bad science if the perpetrators’ credentials are good. NAS is certainly a prestigious organization, but, along with several other scientific organizations lately, it has descended into the world of science politics.

What about the 31,000 scientists who signed the Oregon Petition, saying they DO NOT think humans are making a noticeable contribution to global warming, global cooling, climate change or catastrophic climate change?

The following comments were left by Piers Corbyn concerning the Huffington Post ArticleClimate Ostriches: Why Russia's and Pakistan's Extreme Weather Is About To Become the Norm by Erich Pica President, Friends of the Earth. We posted this as one of our "You Could Not Make It Up" stories but the comments are worthy of a blog as they go into great detail with Piers Corbyn's work.

Erich Pica and the like in Friends of the Earth & Greenpeace are mad and bad and their campaigns are holding back science and human development.

The present and recent superheat in Russia, superfloods in Pakistan and supercold in much of South America and Australia (Odd we havn't heard much about that bit of 'Climate Change') might be new to them but they are nothing new to the world and are part of essentially PREDICTABLE natural solar-magnetic lunar cycles.

By understanding this we can predict and prepare for these extreme weather events; while the Climate Hype industry can predict nothing and teach nothing but hysteria to fuel their carbon-lies economy and their gravy train - the beneficiaries of which are also their 'straw enemy' - the oil companies and hedge funds who love rising energy prices and carbon trading.

The Climate hype and fraud industry is anti-scientific and predicts nothing. It is the enemy of scientific and human advance.

We just had 3 very wet summers in Britain/Ireland in a row (2007/8/9) and this July & August we have superheat in Russia (due to sun and south winds AND of course fires - but the hypers forget that fire is hot!), superfloods in Pakistan and supercold in Australia and & south South America. IT HAS ALL HAPPENED BEFORE - notably about 132 years earlier - and was there a lot of extra CO2 around then? No!

Kellie Tranter's "Brown-washing" article was incorrect, inaccurate, based on fallacies of ad hominem, reasoned by mere authority, and was stocked with countless unsubstantiated claims about imaginary malfeasant authors. It's so vacant, and lacking in any reasonable argument that it doesn't just reflect badly on the author, it begs us to ask why our tax dollars are being used to propagate this kind of generic un-researched smear.

Kellie Tranter attacks imaginary people, who she doesn't name, doesn't cite, and doesn't quote. She accuses them of misrepresentations that she doesn't specify. Surely Australian tax payers expect that commentary they pay to promote ought to at least be based on some research, by someone who has some familiarity with the topic?

Kellie Tranter wants to sue sceptics using the Trade Practices Act (TPA) and its state equivalents, but this is legally tenuous. Generally litigation under Part V of the TPA requires two things. Firstly the target must have created the perception of expertise and secondly used that perception to promote a defective product which people rely on to their detriment.

The article "Climate skeptics confuse, paralyze" from the Los Angeles Times, published on this page July 29, needs rebuttal.

The article said "a consensus of climate scientists" identified human-caused greenhouse gases as causing global warming.

Historically, "consensuses of scientists" have agreed on statements such as these:

* There are only four elements -- air, earth, fire and water.

* The Earth is flat.

* The sun orbits around the Earth.

* We are entering an ice age (1975).

We recently posted in our "Reply to article" section Global warming alarmists can't stand the heat by Peter J. Havanac, Meteorologist., the following is a reply from Michael E. Mann!!

Here's the context surrounding a flawed 2003 research paper.

By MICHAEL E. MANN

In "Warming alarmists can't stand the heat" (July 26), the Star Tribune allowed Peter J. Havanac to do a grave disservice to its readers by making false statements about me and other climate scientists.

Havanac repeated false allegations (based on illegally hacked e-mails) of supposed scientific misconduct by scientists at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (for example, the supposed destruction of e-mails) that have now been rejected as false by three separate investigations in the U.K. A similar investigation by my university has exonerated me of any of the wrongdoing alleged by climate-change deniers like Havanac. Unfortunately, these exonerations cannot stop individuals like Havanac from repeating the false allegations. Only the possession of decency can do that.

Havanac parroted the false claim that I sought to "undermine" a journal that "contradicted views held by ... global-warming alarmists." His claim was based on a thorough misrepresentation of a single example: a deeply flawed paper published in 2003 by the journal Climate Research. That paper, by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, claimed that recent warming is not unusual.

The recent screed by James P. Lenfestey The truth: Still there, still inconvenient was a classic example of how global-warming alarmists spin a story via selective filtering of facts and ad hominem attacks on so-called "deniers."

Lenfestey repeats the usual call for an end to debate over the entire question of global warming, citing the "scientific consensus." He seizes on one quote from the report of a British panel investigating the practices of English climate scientists: "The rigor and honesty of the scientists is not in doubt." He fails to mention numerous less-supportive findings, such as "there was unhelpfulness in responding to requests and evidence that e-mails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them. University senior management should have accepted more responsibility for implementing the required processes for [Freedom of Information Act] ... compliance."

The review panel was not "independent," as claimed. Muir Russell, its chair, is a former vice chancellor at the University of Glasgow. This should be a red flag; professional groups generally have a poor record of self-policing the behavior of their members. One of the panel's four members, Prof. Geoffrey Boulton, was for 18 years on the faculty of East Anglia's School of Environmental Sciences, which included the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) -- the source of the controversial "Climategate" e-mails. In December 2009, Boulton signed a petition that declared that the global climate records scientists at East Anglia "adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity." So much for any claims that the panel was open-minded and objective.

'Declaration that we are experiencing the 'hottest' year is purely a political statement. Lawrimore knows that these statistics are merely tenths of a degree or LESS'

Below is the full text of the response Climate Depot Executive Editor Marc Morano sent to USA Today: A few of Morano's comments did appear July 16, 2010 article. 'World sizzles to record for the year' by reporter Oren Dorell. Below are the full comments sent to USA Today.

Comments by Marc Morano - Publisher of Climate Depot:

Jay Lawrimore, (chief of climate analysis branch at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center) should be ashamed of himself. (Jay.Lawrimore@noaa.gov) Cherry picking one month out of the Arctic when Arctic ice rebounded significantly in 2009 from the low of 2007. (by an area more than one and half the size of Texas in 2009) Even the low point of Arctic sea ice extent in 2007 was not caused by CO2 driven warming. Multiple peer-review papers found it was due to high pressure days, ocean currents and “unusual winds.”

The government is ignoring the record ice growth in the Antarctic and the fact that global sea ice recently hit a 30 year high.

As for the declaration that we are experiencing the “hottest” year -- this is a purely political statement. Lawrimore knows that these statistics are merely tenths of a degree or less. (See: MIT's Richard Lindzen: 'For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause')

(Meteorologist D'Aleo disputes: 'Weather stations NOAA uses are in warmer urban areas' -- 'The only reliable data set right now is satellite' -- 'Oceans entering a cooling cycle that will lower temps')

The following is a reply to Lord Monckton's article Response to John Abraham, whilst ClimateRealists.com wish to promote the use of science there would seem to be other parties who wish to promote non-science..........enjoy!

Monckton fails to provide a convincing refutation of Abraham's criticisms but does throw a great deal of dust into the air

Say what you like about Viscount Monckton, he never fails to entertain. His response to the devastating critique of his claims about climate change by the physicist John Abraham is magnificently bonkers.

To give you a flavour of Monckton's reasoning, here are some examples of what he cites as evidence of Abraham acting out of malice:

• Abraham pointed out that Monckton "has not written a single peer-reviewed science paper on any topic";

• Abraham stated that Lord Monckton "presented a lot of data with no citations or no explanation";

• He pointed out that "if you don't tell us where it's from we can't assess the data";

• He explained that a graph displayed by Lord Monckton was "almost off by 100%".