Tinfoil: Sen Whitehouse says climate ‘denial’ is biggest ‘scam’ since Teapot Dome, Watergate
Speaking on the Senate floor, democrat Senator Sheldon Whitehouse says the climate denial apparatus ‘could be the biggest scam since Tea Pot Dome and Watergate.’
Senator Whitehouse: “Bottom line, if your faith in climate science is undermined, you’ve been had by a well-funded, complex, sophisticated scheme of disinformation.”
February 9, 2016
If there actually is this widespread conspiracy as Sen Whitehouse assures us, why does he not open a Congressional Investigation into this “dark money”. Funny thing, I have never heard of these hundred or so secretive organizations that he rants about. Lets see the truth; a list of names, with addresses, titles and all that would be necessary to make him even remotely believable. If Whitehouse was any place besides the Senate chambers and made those accusations, he would be open to prosecution for the statements he is making. As long as he hides inside the Congressional buildings, he can utter any nonsense he wishes with impunity.
If there actually is this widespread conspiracy as Sen Whitehouse assures us, why does he not also present the public with actual physical evidence (full context document scans, undercover video/audio transcripts, leaked emails, money-transfer receipts, etc.) proving skeptic scientists were paid industry money / received industry instructions to fabricate demonstratively false science papers, reports, assessments or viewpoints? Think of the opportunity here for him, considering not one other person or organization hurling the same accusation has done so over the last two decades……….
There is, Russell! …and you’re part of it.
Are you and Mr. Morano really the best the industry can do?
What do the fossil prostitutes you linked to have to say and why in the world would you believe it?
Are you a paid liar too?
Another politically weaponized government agency, like the Justice Department/IRS/EPA/NASA to name a few.These figures are based on “adjusted” data and “models” from a partisan leftist activist “science” community. Go look at the satellite data without political corruption added;
Like all stats they can be gamed, no doubt. Under the Obama government it’s more then fair to question hacks involved in climate agenda setting. NOAA is a grenshirt haven.
Sweetie, is it likely NASA’s confused about the data that come from their satellites?
Is it likely an employee of a company is telling the truth about the product that company sells?
Is it possible you’re as gullible as you pretend to be?
Willful ignorance and the source is based on agenda, there are no records in the range of error of the claim. It’s a headline for fools and hacks such as yourself.
You know little but you know you’re lying.
Why do you think government funded “experts” who know they are only funded to maintain alarmist advocacy are less “corrupt”????
They are not.
Funny how telling the truth about the global warming scam morphs into “sowing doubt”.
When billions of dollars a year are spent on this scam you can bet there’ll be strong resistance to the truth.
lol! Please, don’t let me stop you from telling the truth!
Anthropogenic global warming is a scientific fact that has been undefeated for over a century.
If you think it’s a scam, point out where the world’s scientists have been going wrong all this time.
If you were telling the truth, isn’t this something you should be able to do?
It’s the sensitivity. CO2 doesn’t have nearly the power to raise temps. as high as some scientists predict. This becomes more and more apparent with every passing year and higher CO2 levels.
It’s been overblown since day one like all us realists predicted.
If the warming power of CO₂ is as weak as you claim, point to a single moment in Earth’s history when polar ice sheets were able to withstand CO₂ as high as we have today.
If you were correct, isn’t that something you should be able to do?
That’s easy, during the Ordovician Period.
As your graph correctly shows, there was a brief ice age toward the end of the Ordovician, lasting perhaps half a million years.
Why did someone superimpose such a coarse CO₂ proxy over it?
Ah, the Ordovician glaciation. Still a deniers’ favorite meme. Despite being discredited long ago in 2010 by the very study cited in your New Scientist link. Still repeated regularly and unapologetically by science-resistant hacks such as Tom Harris and Tim Ball,
Yeah, I used to have a history of that graph, which I can’t locate now. If I remember, it was put together in a guy’s garage, or something like that.
Funny how when your bubble is popped you cling onto a single article that proclaims it was wrong all along.
When the present doesn’t conform to predictions the alarmists adjust the past.
Similar to MM’s hockey stick that ignores the warm period and little ice age.
Or Hansen’s diddling of the past temps. to erase the warming of the thirties.
This single profession of climatology is so rife with fraud that if you told me the sky was blue I would doubt it.
The usual delusional garbage . Yawn.
It’s not my intention to fool anybody. It IS my intention to get people to look into things themselves and don’t believe what the herd is trying to sell them, especially if what they’re being sold is astronomically priced.
You have obviously already bought what the herd has tried to sell you lock, stock and barrel.
Are you saying I have more cattle than you?
I thought the science was “settled” and “everybody” had to get on board to prevent certain catastrophe?
No, you didn’t think.
That’s your problem, I DO think. That’s a problem for all you scamsters who are trying to ram this down our throats…we’re intelligent enough to figure it out.
Then why did you link to a CO₂ proxy that couldn’t possibly prove your claim!?
If you attempted to do it again, would I be justified in calling you a liar?
Hansen ‘diddling’ with proxy temperatures was a pre-conceived idea, discussed in email (‘climate gate’) and then implemented. The flaw is that “Scientists” employ seemingly valid techniques to manipulate the data. This involved a deliberate choice – premeditated, discussed, and chosen for the desired effects: The multi-proxy averaging paleotemperature time-series chart, specifically chosen because it ”agrees well … with temperatures obtained with a general circulation model.” (1) This is the cart, leading the horse; a computer model’s output is reinforced by choosing the data to support it.
A proxy for temperature is some natural, physical attribute, like the ratio of species of diatoms, or pollen grains, isolated from layers of mud at the bottom of a lake, via a core sample. While the makeup of those items that determine the temperature might be without question (and beyond my point, here) – the imprecise dating of the sample, introduces a skew of the (time, temperature) data point. Subsequent averaging of (time, temperature) data points (with dating errors) causes the obliteration of short-term temperature excursions, even though the peaks of the excursions might have been accurately recorded with individual proxies. This causes a low-frequency-pass (high-frequency-attenuation) “smearing” of the temperature reconstruction. This outcome was desired, and discussed, as shown by the “climate gate” emails (2). This is done, and is presented to the public as “science” – when it is deliberately chosen to mislead, in fact, lie, (3) about natural temperature variations, seen in the recent (Holocene) past, that were more extreme than now, and certainly not caused by fossil fuel emissions.
They know what they are doing… [as stated -in writing- in Jan 2005] Jonathan Overpeck’s exact words are: (http://di2.nu/foia/1105670738.txt)
“I get the sense that I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature.”
Loehle 2000: ”… the existence of dating error in the series means that peaks and troughs are damped compared to annual data and are likely even damped compared to the true history…” (4)
Ljungqvist 2010: “The dating uncertainty of proxy records very likely results in “ﬂattining out” [of] the values from the same climate event, over several hundred years, and thus, in fact, acts as a low-pass ﬁlter that makes us unable to capture the true magnitude of the cold and warm periods in the reconstruction (Loehle 2004). What we then actually get is an average of the temperature over one or two centuries.” (5)
Mangini, Jul 2005: “As expected, the multi-proxy stack has smaller amplitude, of about 0.9 °C, than our curve from [Spannagel Cave in the Alps], between the minimum in the LIA, and the MWP events. The smaller amplitude is obvious, since Moberg’s reconstruction, resulting from a stack of several different archives, with independent age control, looses amplitude as a consequence of the uncertainty in the ages of the single curves.“ (6)
▇▇▇▇▇ References ▇▇▇▇▇▇
(1) ”…agrees well with temperatures reconstructed from borehole measurements (12) and with temperatures obtained with a general circulation model…”
Moberg, Anders, et al. 2005 “Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low-and high-resolution proxy data.” Nature
”From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: Re: For your eyes only
Date: Thu Feb 3 13:11:46 2005
“It would be good to produce future series with and without the long instrumental series and maybe the documentary ones as well. The long measurements can then be used to validate the low-freq aspects at least back to 1750, maybe earlier with the documentary. There are some key warm decades (1730s, some in the 16th century) which the Moberg reconstruction completely misses and gives the impression that all years are cold between 1500 and 1750.” …
(3) Phil Jones said, “They have no idea what multiproxy averaging does” 2003
(4) Loehle, Craig. “A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies.” Energy & Environment 18.7 (2007): 1049-1058.
(5) Ljungqvist, Fredrik Charpentier 2010 “A new reconstruction of temperature variability in the extra‐tropical Northern Hemisphere during the last two millennia.” Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography
(6) Mangini, Jul 2005: “As expected, the multi-proxy stack has smaller amplitude, of about 0.9 °C, than our curve from [Spannagel Cave in the Alps], between the minimum in the LIA, and the MWP events. The smaller amplitude is obvious, since Moberg’s reconstruction, resulting from a stack of several different archives, with independent age control, looses amplitude as a consequence of the uncertainty in the ages of the single curves. In contrast, the temperature record from SPA 12, with an extremely good age control, and with a better than decadal resolution of 18O, gives insight into temperature variations that were not recorded in other archives.”
… “This difference is in good agreement with those derived from sediment cores from the Bermuda Rise but is larger than the reconstruction of temperature for the Northern Hemisphere from low frequency stacks and significantly larger than that in the IPCC report.”
“Together, these non-faunal archives indicate that the MWP was a climatically distinct period in the Northern Hemisphere. This conclusion is in strong contradiction to the temperature reconstruction by the IPCC, which only sees the last 100 yr as a period of increased temperature during the last 2000 yr.”
“During the MWP we observe periods lasting between 20–50 yr with temperatures higher than the average over the last 2000 yr.”
“Fig. 3. Comparison of the temperature derived from SPA 12 (black curve) with the average stack for the N.H. by Moberg et al. (red curve). As expected SPA 12 shows a larger amplitude (about 2.7 °C) than the stack for the N.H (0.9 °C).”
Mangini, A., C. Spötlb, and P. Verdes. “Reconstruction of temperature in the Central Alps during the past 2000 yr from a δ18O stalagmite record.” Earth and Planetary Science Letters 235 (2005): 741-751.
http://epsc.wustl.edu/courses/epsc484/mangini05.pdf (full PDF)
Use of the Moberg reconstruction by Mann was deliberate; errors in temporal resolution (time differences between multiple proxies for temperature) smeared out short-term temperature peaks. Climategate emails reveal the discussion. It was a premeditated decision to “low-pass” smooth out warm periods in temperature records, because the CO2 theory couldn’t explain them.
Multi-proxy averaging smears peaks in temperature, because of poor control over the age of the proxy. Thus, you get the lower temperature you’re after.
David Demming’s statement to the senate: http://www.epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543
*********** The scene of the crime: Moberg
”agrees well with temperatures reconstructed from borehole measurements (12) and with temperatures obtained with a general circulation model”
Moberg, Anders, et al. 2005 “Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low-and high-resolution proxy data.” Nature
At 06:25 28/09/2009, Tom Wigley wrote:
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly
explain the 1940s warming blip.
If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
then this would be significant for the global mean — but
we’d still have to explain the land blip.
I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an
ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of
ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common
forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are
1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity
plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things
consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
but we are still left with “why the blip”.
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol
effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced
ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling
in the NH — just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note — from
MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can
get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal
solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987
(and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s
makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it
currently is not) — but not really enough.
So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem?
(SH/NH data also attached.)
This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d
appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.
I want to say it stems from a legitimate graph in an actual peer-reviewed paper. The paper had absolutely nothing to do with the end-Ordovician glaciation, and the author assumed his readers would understand why it’s inappropriate to use it to draw any conclusions about that particular glaciation…
…and you know what they say about assumptions.
It’s disgraceful that scientists have to be so worried about quote-mines, but unfortunately they do. Prostitutes like Morano (…or prostitutes far more intelligent than Morano), are constantly looking for new papers to misrepresent.
Zwally’s paper is the latest one. I’m seeing a ramp-up in quote-mines for that one:
Beerling, David J., and Dana L. Royer 2011. “Convergent cenozoic CO2 history.” Nature Geoscience
Montañez 2007: 3 million years of glaciation, with pCO2 never lower than 2,500 ppmv, in the Kungurian stage, of the Early Permian period, 270-275 million years ago.
Montañez, Isabel P., et al. 2007 “CO2-forced climate and vegetation instability during Late Paleozoic deglaciation.” Science
In the late Sakmarian stage of the Early Permian, 287 million years ago, the onset of glaciation occurred with pCO2 at 2,500 ppmv, then the concentration plunged to not less than 500 ppmv, and then rose again to 2,000 ppmv, with continuous glaciation lasting seven million years, through to the mid-Artinskian stage.
The dark blue line shows “best estimates” of Co2. At the end of the Gzhelian, the listed best estimate is well over 500 ppmv at the transition to the early Permian, when both poles were glaciated. Sure, CO2 begins to nose-dive, it always does, LAGGING TEMPERATURE by dozens to thousands of years. Then, the blue hash shows that one of the poles is deglaciated (while CO2 is low, by the way) then the other pole is ice-free (while CO2 is low)… and THEN, after both poles are ice-free, CO2 begins to rise! How about that. “Best estimate” CO2 crosses 2000 ppm, and THEN GLACIATION SETS IN while CO2 heads up over 2500! Best estimate CO2 reaches AS LOW AS 500 PPM, more than today’s value, AND THEN HEADS BACK UP OVER 2000 while polar glaciation is maintained.
Then, in Kungurian, CO2 is above 3500 ppm, and LO! bi-polar glaciation sets in, and is maintained, glaciated, while CO2 begins to nose-dive, but the end of the Kungurain is reached before CO2 drops below 2500.
❝my .friend’s mate Is getting 98$. HOURLY. on the internet.❞….few days ago new McLaren. F1 bought after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a days ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn. More right Here;b335➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsSite/GetPaid/98$hourly…. .❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:::::;b335….
❝my .friend’s mate Is getting 98$. HOURLY. on the internet.❞….few days ago new McLaren. F1 bought after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a days ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn. More right Here;b686➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsPlan/GetPaid/98$hourly…. .❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:::::;b686……
I hold in my hand a list of names….
I have it on good authority…
❝my .friend’s mate Is getting 98$. HOURLY. on the internet.❞….few days ago new McLaren. F1 bought after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn. More right Here;;109➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsMoney/GetPaid/98$hourly…. .❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2::::;;109………….
Oh so “denialists” are the ones trying to set up scams like carbon credits, govt subsidized bird-destroying wind turbos, & job & economy killing by blocking domestic access to natural energy sources (i.e. COAL)? Who knew?
Hide the decline.
If you look at this Brookings institution document http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Reports/2015/11/16-paris-climate-talks/public-policy-sustainable-infrastructure-qureshi.pdf?la=en the warmists say $2.5T (yes trillion) per year of global expenditure, what we currently spend on “sustainable infrastructure” is NOT ENOUGH. They want $6T invested per year to deal with this non-problem. The malfeasance and distorted economics are the main reason why economies are tanking across the planet. And invariably it’s the most wealthy and powerful that end up with this transferred wealth.
Saul Alinsky advocated accusing your opponents of doing the very things you are doing. It is sort of like group projection.
He must be thrilled Senatrix ‘don’t call me ma’am’ Boxer is retiring. The Senate needs a new official Stupidest Member.