<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
	<channel>
		<title><![CDATA[Global Warming Skeptics - Consensus  Science]]></title>
		<link>http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/</link>
		<description><![CDATA[Global Warming Skeptics - http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums]]></description>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Sep 2010 23:49:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<generator>MyBB</generator>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Chicken Little Was A Calamitologist]]></title>
			<link>http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-840.html</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jul 2010 02:39:19 -0500</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-840.html</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[A very illuminating essay over at P Gosselin – NoTricksZone:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://pgosselin.wordpress.com/2010/07/22/chicken-little-was-a-calamitologist-by-ed-caryl/" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Chicken Little Was A Calamitologist – by Ed Caryl</span></span></a><br />
<br />
<blockquote><cite>Quote:</cite>The warmists call themselves climatologists, but that term is a job description, not a degree. A better description would be calamitologist - one who envisions climate calamities.</blockquote>
<br />
Interesting to see just how qualified some people are.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[A very illuminating essay over at P Gosselin – NoTricksZone:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://pgosselin.wordpress.com/2010/07/22/chicken-little-was-a-calamitologist-by-ed-caryl/" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Chicken Little Was A Calamitologist – by Ed Caryl</span></span></a><br />
<br />
<blockquote><cite>Quote:</cite>The warmists call themselves climatologists, but that term is a job description, not a degree. A better description would be calamitologist - one who envisions climate calamities.</blockquote>
<br />
Interesting to see just how qualified some people are.]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Are "new" paradigms in science on the horizon ?]]></title>
			<link>http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-757.html</link>
			<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jun 2010 04:25:20 -0500</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-757.html</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Or upon us already....<br />
<br />
Hi All.<br />
Over at Jo Nova's blog I have been exchanging a few comments with Graeme Bird,<br />
specifically in relation to the moon and our planet's climate (changes).<br />
<br />
"We" here are seeing abiotic oil becoming more "mainstream".<br />
ie, <a href="http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-243.html" target="_blank">http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...d-243.html</a> <br />
<br />
"We" also have been considering the electric universe view in astronomy.<br />
<br />
It would seem that the moon's effect upon our planet's climate might benefit both "our" present skepticism of the AGW paradigm in climate science,<br />
and strengthen knowledge, and wareness of the electric universe ideas.<br />
<br />
The thread at Jo Nova's blog is,<br />
<a href="http://joannenova.com.au/2010/06/the-deep-oceans-drive-the-atmosphere/" target="_blank">http://joannenova.com.au/2010/06/the-dee...tmosphere/</a><br />
The comments I am referring to start at about comment 39 by Baa Humbug onwards.<br />
BTW - Just ignore Mattb's comments.<br /><!-- start: postbit_attachments_attachment -->
<br /><img src="images/attachtypes/doc.gif" border="0" alt=".doc" />&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="attachment.php?aid=149" target="_blank">Jo Nova thread excerpted comments. June 2010.doc</a> (Size: 123.5 KB / Downloads: 1)
<!-- end: postbit_attachments_attachment -->]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Or upon us already....<br />
<br />
Hi All.<br />
Over at Jo Nova's blog I have been exchanging a few comments with Graeme Bird,<br />
specifically in relation to the moon and our planet's climate (changes).<br />
<br />
"We" here are seeing abiotic oil becoming more "mainstream".<br />
ie, <a href="http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-243.html" target="_blank">http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...d-243.html</a> <br />
<br />
"We" also have been considering the electric universe view in astronomy.<br />
<br />
It would seem that the moon's effect upon our planet's climate might benefit both "our" present skepticism of the AGW paradigm in climate science,<br />
and strengthen knowledge, and wareness of the electric universe ideas.<br />
<br />
The thread at Jo Nova's blog is,<br />
<a href="http://joannenova.com.au/2010/06/the-deep-oceans-drive-the-atmosphere/" target="_blank">http://joannenova.com.au/2010/06/the-dee...tmosphere/</a><br />
The comments I am referring to start at about comment 39 by Baa Humbug onwards.<br />
BTW - Just ignore Mattb's comments.<br /><!-- start: postbit_attachments_attachment -->
<br /><img src="images/attachtypes/doc.gif" border="0" alt=".doc" />&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="attachment.php?aid=149" target="_blank">Jo Nova thread excerpted comments. June 2010.doc</a> (Size: 123.5 KB / Downloads: 1)
<!-- end: postbit_attachments_attachment -->]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Visible Greenhouse Gases]]></title>
			<link>http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-740.html</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jun 2010 07:34:26 -0500</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-740.html</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[I was running Bing on "heat trapping greenhouse gases" and this turned up.<br />
<br />
I suppose it had to happen. Look at the video on the first page and I quote the reason for this wonderful technology from the bottom of the second page.<br />
<br />
Anyone care to bet how long before the BBC has one these cameras?<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/global-warming-greenhouse-gases-detected-flir-gas-finder-cameras/story?id=9296465" target="_blank"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size: large;">Greenhouse Gases: Seeing the Unseeable with 'Gas Finder' FLIR Cameras</span></span></a><br />
<br />
<blockquote><cite>Quote:</cite>On a walk through their plant to see how FLIR cameras are made, we asked them if - given global negotiations to regulate carbon dioxide – if anyone has requested a CO2 camera for commercial use. <br />
<br />
"No one's asked us for one," said Benson. <br />
<br />
Not yet, but global negotiations aiming to make it finally no longer free to put emit CO2 into the air may soon have FLIR's full attention.</blockquote>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[I was running Bing on "heat trapping greenhouse gases" and this turned up.<br />
<br />
I suppose it had to happen. Look at the video on the first page and I quote the reason for this wonderful technology from the bottom of the second page.<br />
<br />
Anyone care to bet how long before the BBC has one these cameras?<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/global-warming-greenhouse-gases-detected-flir-gas-finder-cameras/story?id=9296465" target="_blank"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size: large;">Greenhouse Gases: Seeing the Unseeable with 'Gas Finder' FLIR Cameras</span></span></a><br />
<br />
<blockquote><cite>Quote:</cite>On a walk through their plant to see how FLIR cameras are made, we asked them if - given global negotiations to regulate carbon dioxide – if anyone has requested a CO2 camera for commercial use. <br />
<br />
"No one's asked us for one," said Benson. <br />
<br />
Not yet, but global negotiations aiming to make it finally no longer free to put emit CO2 into the air may soon have FLIR's full attention.</blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[“Shut-eyed Denial”]]></title>
			<link>http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-603.html</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 07:18:34 -0600</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-603.html</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Climate Audit<br />
<br />
Mar 11, 2010 at 5:06 PM<br />
<br />
John A<br />
<br />
EXCERPT:<br />
<br />
A shout-out for a review of Andrew Montford’s “The Hockey Stick Illusion” by Matt Ridley in Prospect Magazine.<br />
<br />
Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion is one of the best science books in years. It exposes in delicious detail, datum by datum, how a great scientific mistake of immense political weight was perpetrated, defended and camouflaged by a scientific establishment that should now be red with shame. It is a book about principal components, data mining and confidence intervals—subjects that have never before been made thrilling. It is the biography of a graph.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://climateaudit.org/2010/03/11/shut-eyed-denial/#comments" target="_blank">LINK</a><br />
===============================================<br />
<span style="color: #0000CD;">Here is a good comment to ponder over:<br />
</span><br />
<br />
<blockquote><cite>Quote:</cite>SteveGinIL<br />
Posted Mar 12, 2010 at 1:14 AM<br />
<br />
    Bishop Hill has this, plus he comments on this link:<br />
<br />
    11 March: Physics World: Concerns raised over Institute of Physics climate submission<br />
    by Michael Banks, news editor of Physics World<br />
    The hockey-stick graph, which is widely considered as a valid result in the climate-research community, was later included into the third assessment report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001.<br />
    The “trick”, as mentioned by Jones in one of his e-mails to Mann, Bradley and Hughes, is a statistical method that is widely accepted in the climate community and is applied to proxy measurements in the years since 1960. It deals with the problem that some tree rings in certain parts of the world have stopped getting bigger since that time, when they ought to have been increasing in size if the world is warming.</blockquote>
<br />
"See, now THIS goes to the nub of science, of the basis of Uniformitarianism.<br />
<br />
Stealing from Wikipedia (because it is quicker than paraphrasing it myself):"<br />
<br />
<blockquote><cite>Quote:</cite><span style="font-weight: bold;">Uniformitarianism</span>, in the philosophy of naturalism, assumes that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. It is frequently summarized as “the present is the key to the past,” because it holds that all things continue as they were from the beginning of the world.</blockquote>
<br />
"You see, they are violating the very CORE of Uniformitarianism, if they are saying that what is observed in the present is DIFFERENT from what has occurred in the past. They can’t have one standard for tree rings in the last 50 years and a different one for the time before that.<br />
<br />
If Uniformitarianism is the gold standard for science, they were/are completely abrogating that. Actually, in doing so, they are claiming something that they have not formulated a basis for, something to SHOW convincingly that Uniformitarianism does not apply in THIS ONE SITUATION. They don’t even bother trying to argue it: they just apply it and leave it up to everyone else to discover that they’ve changed the rules of science.<br />
<br />
Mr Mann, Mr Briffa, Mr Jones, and assignment: <br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Please inform us why the tree ring evidence of the last 50 years should have a different interpretation and quantification from all previous years and centuries.<br />
<br />
And, PLEASE, show your work.</span>"]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Climate Audit<br />
<br />
Mar 11, 2010 at 5:06 PM<br />
<br />
John A<br />
<br />
EXCERPT:<br />
<br />
A shout-out for a review of Andrew Montford’s “The Hockey Stick Illusion” by Matt Ridley in Prospect Magazine.<br />
<br />
Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion is one of the best science books in years. It exposes in delicious detail, datum by datum, how a great scientific mistake of immense political weight was perpetrated, defended and camouflaged by a scientific establishment that should now be red with shame. It is a book about principal components, data mining and confidence intervals—subjects that have never before been made thrilling. It is the biography of a graph.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://climateaudit.org/2010/03/11/shut-eyed-denial/#comments" target="_blank">LINK</a><br />
===============================================<br />
<span style="color: #0000CD;">Here is a good comment to ponder over:<br />
</span><br />
<br />
<blockquote><cite>Quote:</cite>SteveGinIL<br />
Posted Mar 12, 2010 at 1:14 AM<br />
<br />
    Bishop Hill has this, plus he comments on this link:<br />
<br />
    11 March: Physics World: Concerns raised over Institute of Physics climate submission<br />
    by Michael Banks, news editor of Physics World<br />
    The hockey-stick graph, which is widely considered as a valid result in the climate-research community, was later included into the third assessment report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001.<br />
    The “trick”, as mentioned by Jones in one of his e-mails to Mann, Bradley and Hughes, is a statistical method that is widely accepted in the climate community and is applied to proxy measurements in the years since 1960. It deals with the problem that some tree rings in certain parts of the world have stopped getting bigger since that time, when they ought to have been increasing in size if the world is warming.</blockquote>
<br />
"See, now THIS goes to the nub of science, of the basis of Uniformitarianism.<br />
<br />
Stealing from Wikipedia (because it is quicker than paraphrasing it myself):"<br />
<br />
<blockquote><cite>Quote:</cite><span style="font-weight: bold;">Uniformitarianism</span>, in the philosophy of naturalism, assumes that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. It is frequently summarized as “the present is the key to the past,” because it holds that all things continue as they were from the beginning of the world.</blockquote>
<br />
"You see, they are violating the very CORE of Uniformitarianism, if they are saying that what is observed in the present is DIFFERENT from what has occurred in the past. They can’t have one standard for tree rings in the last 50 years and a different one for the time before that.<br />
<br />
If Uniformitarianism is the gold standard for science, they were/are completely abrogating that. Actually, in doing so, they are claiming something that they have not formulated a basis for, something to SHOW convincingly that Uniformitarianism does not apply in THIS ONE SITUATION. They don’t even bother trying to argue it: they just apply it and leave it up to everyone else to discover that they’ve changed the rules of science.<br />
<br />
Mr Mann, Mr Briffa, Mr Jones, and assignment: <br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Please inform us why the tree ring evidence of the last 50 years should have a different interpretation and quantification from all previous years and centuries.<br />
<br />
And, PLEASE, show your work.</span>"]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus]]></title>
			<link>http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-410.html</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:39:38 -0600</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-410.html</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[The Wall Street Journal<br />
<br />
DECEMBER 17, 2009, 10:47 P.M. ET<br />
<br />
By PATRICK J. MICHAELS<br />
<br />
EXCERPT:<br />
<br />
Few people understand the real significance of Climategate, the now-famous hacking of emails from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU). Most see the contents as demonstrating some arbitrary manipulating of various climate data sources in order to fit preconceived hypotheses (true), or as stonewalling and requesting colleagues to destroy emails to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the face of potential or actual Freedom of Information requests (also true).<br />
<br />
But there's something much, much worse going on—a silencing of climate scientists, akin to filtering what goes in the bible, that will have consequences for public policy, including the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) recent categorization of carbon dioxide as a "pollutant."<br />
<br />
The bible I'm referring to, of course, is the refereed scientific literature. It's our canon, and it's all we have really had to go on in climate science (until the Internet has so rudely interrupted). When scientists make putative compendia of that literature, such as is done by the U.N. climate change panel every six years, the writers assume that the peer-reviewed literature is a true and unbiased sample of the state of climate science. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html?mod=googlenews_wsj" target="_blank">LINK</a><br />
=================================================<br />
<span style="color: #0000CD;">Patrick Michaels was one of the scientists who was whitewashed by the alarmist scums and a governor.</span>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[The Wall Street Journal<br />
<br />
DECEMBER 17, 2009, 10:47 P.M. ET<br />
<br />
By PATRICK J. MICHAELS<br />
<br />
EXCERPT:<br />
<br />
Few people understand the real significance of Climategate, the now-famous hacking of emails from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU). Most see the contents as demonstrating some arbitrary manipulating of various climate data sources in order to fit preconceived hypotheses (true), or as stonewalling and requesting colleagues to destroy emails to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the face of potential or actual Freedom of Information requests (also true).<br />
<br />
But there's something much, much worse going on—a silencing of climate scientists, akin to filtering what goes in the bible, that will have consequences for public policy, including the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) recent categorization of carbon dioxide as a "pollutant."<br />
<br />
The bible I'm referring to, of course, is the refereed scientific literature. It's our canon, and it's all we have really had to go on in climate science (until the Internet has so rudely interrupted). When scientists make putative compendia of that literature, such as is done by the U.N. climate change panel every six years, the writers assume that the peer-reviewed literature is a true and unbiased sample of the state of climate science. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html?mod=googlenews_wsj" target="_blank">LINK</a><br />
=================================================<br />
<span style="color: #0000CD;">Patrick Michaels was one of the scientists who was whitewashed by the alarmist scums and a governor.</span>]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Climategate: Obama’s Science Adviser Confirms the Scandal — Unintentionally]]></title>
			<link>http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-379.html</link>
			<pubDate>Sun, 06 Dec 2009 11:54:38 -0600</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-379.html</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Pajamas Media<br />
<br />
December 5, 2009 - by Myron Ebell<br />
<br />
EXCERPT:<br />
<br />
When the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming held a hearing on the state of climate science on December 2, the Republicans were ready to focus it on the Climategate fraud scandal. And the first witness, President Obama’s science adviser, Dr. John P. Holdren, was ready to respond.<br />
<br />
Instead of summarizing his written testimony in his oral remarks, Holdren read a prepared statement on Climategate. He said that the controversy involved a “small group of scientists” and was primarily about one temperature dataset. He said that such controversies were not unusual in all branches of science and that they got sorted out through the peer review process and continuing scrutiny. Holdren also said that openness and sharing of data was important, which is why the Obama administration is strongly committed to openness. In the case of the disputed dataset (the “hockey stick” graph), the National Academies of Science (NAS) undertook a thorough review of it and all other similar datasets and concluded that the preponderance of evidence supported the principal conclusion of the research. Holdren concluded by predicting that when the dust settles on this controversy, a very strong scientific consensus on global warming will remain.<br />
<br />
Well, that sounds pretty plausible, but anyone who has followed Dr. Holdren’s amazing career knows that he is a master of plausible buncombe that disguises his “outlandish scientific assertions, consistently wrong predictions, and dangerous public policy choices,” as my CEI colleague William Yeatman has put it. Everything that Holdren said in his opening statement is incomplete and misleading. But explaining that is a job for another day. The point is that the alarmist establishment and environmental pressure groups have settled on these talking points in order to try to contain and sanitize the scandal.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-obamas-science-adviser-confirms-the-scandal-%E2%80%94-unintentionally/" target="_blank">LINK</a><br />
================================================<br />
<span style="color: #0000CD;">The same man who is President Obama's science adviser.A real low level thinking "scientist".</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #0000CD;">A quack is what the President has at his side.</span><br />
<br />
<img src="http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/images/smilies/sad.gif" style="vertical-align: middle;" border="0" alt="Sad" title="Sad" />]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Pajamas Media<br />
<br />
December 5, 2009 - by Myron Ebell<br />
<br />
EXCERPT:<br />
<br />
When the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming held a hearing on the state of climate science on December 2, the Republicans were ready to focus it on the Climategate fraud scandal. And the first witness, President Obama’s science adviser, Dr. John P. Holdren, was ready to respond.<br />
<br />
Instead of summarizing his written testimony in his oral remarks, Holdren read a prepared statement on Climategate. He said that the controversy involved a “small group of scientists” and was primarily about one temperature dataset. He said that such controversies were not unusual in all branches of science and that they got sorted out through the peer review process and continuing scrutiny. Holdren also said that openness and sharing of data was important, which is why the Obama administration is strongly committed to openness. In the case of the disputed dataset (the “hockey stick” graph), the National Academies of Science (NAS) undertook a thorough review of it and all other similar datasets and concluded that the preponderance of evidence supported the principal conclusion of the research. Holdren concluded by predicting that when the dust settles on this controversy, a very strong scientific consensus on global warming will remain.<br />
<br />
Well, that sounds pretty plausible, but anyone who has followed Dr. Holdren’s amazing career knows that he is a master of plausible buncombe that disguises his “outlandish scientific assertions, consistently wrong predictions, and dangerous public policy choices,” as my CEI colleague William Yeatman has put it. Everything that Holdren said in his opening statement is incomplete and misleading. But explaining that is a job for another day. The point is that the alarmist establishment and environmental pressure groups have settled on these talking points in order to try to contain and sanitize the scandal.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-obamas-science-adviser-confirms-the-scandal-%E2%80%94-unintentionally/" target="_blank">LINK</a><br />
================================================<br />
<span style="color: #0000CD;">The same man who is President Obama's science adviser.A real low level thinking "scientist".</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #0000CD;">A quack is what the President has at his side.</span><br />
<br />
<img src="http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/images/smilies/sad.gif" style="vertical-align: middle;" border="0" alt="Sad" title="Sad" />]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[A devastating response to “There’s nothing to see here, move along”]]></title>
			<link>http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-366.html</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 20:52:19 -0600</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-366.html</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Watts Up With That?<br />
<br />
12-04-2009<br />
<br />
Guest post by John A<br />
<br />
EXCERPT:<br />
<br />
The usual armwaving denial that we should not trust our own lying eyes was delivered by a Harvard Professor in the Boston Globe:<br />
<br />
    James McCarthy, a respected Harvard professor who was a former Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author, sent a letter to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) today stressing that e-mails stolen from climate scientists do not undermine the evidenc[e] for manmade global warming.<br />
<br />
    McCarthy is board chair of both the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).<br />
<br />
    The letter reads “The scientific process depends on open access to methodology, data, and a rigorous peer-review process. The robust exchange of ideas in the peer-reviewed literature regarding climate science is evidence of the high degree of integrity in this process. The body of evidence that human activity is prominent agent in global warming is overwhelming. The content of these a few personal emails has no impact what-so-ever on our overall understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming.”<br />
<br />
In the words of Frank Drebin: “Nothing to see here, move along!”<br />
<br />
<img src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_oCeMiYptlC8/SxiG6jBU-WI/AAAAAAAAAt4/Hbw4uDFIQHM/s400/nothing%20to%20see%20here.jpg" border="0" alt="[Image: nothing%20to%20see%20here.jpg]" /><br />
<br />
<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/a-devastating-response-to-theres-nothing-to-see-here-move-along/#more-13710" target="_blank">LINK</a><br />
===================================================<br />
<blockquote><cite>Quote:</cite>The content of these a few personal emails has no impact what-so-ever on our overall understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming.”</blockquote>
<br />
<span style="color: #0000CD;">What a lying jerk James McCarthy is.<br />
<br />
What Global Warming?</span>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Watts Up With That?<br />
<br />
12-04-2009<br />
<br />
Guest post by John A<br />
<br />
EXCERPT:<br />
<br />
The usual armwaving denial that we should not trust our own lying eyes was delivered by a Harvard Professor in the Boston Globe:<br />
<br />
    James McCarthy, a respected Harvard professor who was a former Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author, sent a letter to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) today stressing that e-mails stolen from climate scientists do not undermine the evidenc[e] for manmade global warming.<br />
<br />
    McCarthy is board chair of both the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).<br />
<br />
    The letter reads “The scientific process depends on open access to methodology, data, and a rigorous peer-review process. The robust exchange of ideas in the peer-reviewed literature regarding climate science is evidence of the high degree of integrity in this process. The body of evidence that human activity is prominent agent in global warming is overwhelming. The content of these a few personal emails has no impact what-so-ever on our overall understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming.”<br />
<br />
In the words of Frank Drebin: “Nothing to see here, move along!”<br />
<br />
<img src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_oCeMiYptlC8/SxiG6jBU-WI/AAAAAAAAAt4/Hbw4uDFIQHM/s400/nothing%20to%20see%20here.jpg" border="0" alt="[Image: nothing%20to%20see%20here.jpg]" /><br />
<br />
<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/a-devastating-response-to-theres-nothing-to-see-here-move-along/#more-13710" target="_blank">LINK</a><br />
===================================================<br />
<blockquote><cite>Quote:</cite>The content of these a few personal emails has no impact what-so-ever on our overall understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming.”</blockquote>
<br />
<span style="color: #0000CD;">What a lying jerk James McCarthy is.<br />
<br />
What Global Warming?</span>]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[12 Days, 3 Networks and No Mention of ClimateGate Scandal]]></title>
			<link>http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-360.html</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 15:25:53 -0600</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-360.html</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20091202135822.aspx" target="_blank">12 Days, 3 Networks and No Mention of ClimateGate Scandal </a><br />
<br />
<blockquote><cite>Quote:</cite>It’s been nearly two weeks since a scandal shook many people’s faith in the scientists behind global warming alarmism. The scandal forced the University of East Anglia (UK) to divulge that it threw away raw temperature data and prompted the temporary resignation of Phil Jones of the university’s Climate Research Unit.<br />
<br />
 <br />
<br />
Despite that resignation and calls by a U.S. senator to investigate the matter, ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news programming has remained silent – not mentioning a word about the scandal since it broke on Nov. 20, even as world leaders including President Barack Obama prepare to meet in Copenhagen, Denmark next week to promote a pact to reduce greenhouse gases.<br />
<br />
(and)<br />
<br />
An examination of morning and evening news programs on ABC, CBS and NBC since Nov. 20 yielded zero mentions of the scandal, even in the Nov. 25 reports about Obama going to Copenhagen to discuss the need for emissions reductions. But during the same time period, the networks reported on pro-golfer Tiger Woods’ “minor” car accident at least 37 times. They also found time to report on an orphaned Moose and the meal selection at the president’s State Dinner. </blockquote>
<br />
But, the Daily Show (Jon Stewart) took time to mention it:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><cite>Quote:</cite>The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" produced its "reporting" on Climate-gate Tuesday night, when Stewart quipped, "Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!"</blockquote>
<br />
(Note: the video is no longer on youtube citing "Viacom" copyright claims.)<br />
<br />
Remember, these are the media outlets that claimed a "consensus". They wouldn't want you to discover that that "consensus" is founded on false data, so it isn't surprising they are helping to keep the information minimized, is it?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20091202135822.aspx" target="_blank">12 Days, 3 Networks and No Mention of ClimateGate Scandal </a><br />
<br />
<blockquote><cite>Quote:</cite>It’s been nearly two weeks since a scandal shook many people’s faith in the scientists behind global warming alarmism. The scandal forced the University of East Anglia (UK) to divulge that it threw away raw temperature data and prompted the temporary resignation of Phil Jones of the university’s Climate Research Unit.<br />
<br />
 <br />
<br />
Despite that resignation and calls by a U.S. senator to investigate the matter, ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news programming has remained silent – not mentioning a word about the scandal since it broke on Nov. 20, even as world leaders including President Barack Obama prepare to meet in Copenhagen, Denmark next week to promote a pact to reduce greenhouse gases.<br />
<br />
(and)<br />
<br />
An examination of morning and evening news programs on ABC, CBS and NBC since Nov. 20 yielded zero mentions of the scandal, even in the Nov. 25 reports about Obama going to Copenhagen to discuss the need for emissions reductions. But during the same time period, the networks reported on pro-golfer Tiger Woods’ “minor” car accident at least 37 times. They also found time to report on an orphaned Moose and the meal selection at the president’s State Dinner. </blockquote>
<br />
But, the Daily Show (Jon Stewart) took time to mention it:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><cite>Quote:</cite>The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" produced its "reporting" on Climate-gate Tuesday night, when Stewart quipped, "Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!"</blockquote>
<br />
(Note: the video is no longer on youtube citing "Viacom" copyright claims.)<br />
<br />
Remember, these are the media outlets that claimed a "consensus". They wouldn't want you to discover that that "consensus" is founded on false data, so it isn't surprising they are helping to keep the information minimized, is it?]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[More "ClimateGate" fallout?.....]]></title>
			<link>http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-344.html</link>
			<pubDate>Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:27:00 -0600</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-344.html</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/vincent-gray-on-climategate-there-was-proof-of-fraud-all-along-pjm-exclusive/" target="_blank">Vincent Gray on Climategate: ‘There Was Proof of Fraud All Along’ (PJM Exclusive) </a><br />
<br />
Unbelievable!<br />
<br />
The same data was used by two different groups of scientists, both of which included Wang and Karl, to develop two different papers:<br />
<br />
One that provides evidence that urban change has <span style="font-style: italic;">no influence</span> on temperatures and the other paper provides evidence that urban change does have <span style="font-style: italic;">influence</span> on temperatures.<br />
<br />
How can this be?  <br />
<br />
Easy, when you have your "buddy group" doing the peer review.  <br />
<br />
The fraud is obvious.  <br />
<br />
Worse, one of these papers is primary to IPCC's stand on urban change not having any influence on the temperature measurements.<br />
<br />
"All the facts are in, the science is settled, there is a consensus." - I don't think so!]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/vincent-gray-on-climategate-there-was-proof-of-fraud-all-along-pjm-exclusive/" target="_blank">Vincent Gray on Climategate: ‘There Was Proof of Fraud All Along’ (PJM Exclusive) </a><br />
<br />
Unbelievable!<br />
<br />
The same data was used by two different groups of scientists, both of which included Wang and Karl, to develop two different papers:<br />
<br />
One that provides evidence that urban change has <span style="font-style: italic;">no influence</span> on temperatures and the other paper provides evidence that urban change does have <span style="font-style: italic;">influence</span> on temperatures.<br />
<br />
How can this be?  <br />
<br />
Easy, when you have your "buddy group" doing the peer review.  <br />
<br />
The fraud is obvious.  <br />
<br />
Worse, one of these papers is primary to IPCC's stand on urban change not having any influence on the temperature measurements.<br />
<br />
"All the facts are in, the science is settled, there is a consensus." - I don't think so!]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Changing the minds of the masses]]></title>
			<link>http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-332.html</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:31:00 -0600</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-332.html</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[I just posted this on the WUWT site:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><cite>Quote:</cite>In the spirit of "Tips &amp; Notes to WUWT" -<br />
<br />
As a layman regarding climate in general, but one who is observing articles here and on other "skeptical" sites, I'm aware of a number of different scientific discussions that do not lead to support of AGW.<br />
<br />
However, I believe that various polls show that a majority of the "non-involved" folks are being led by what the main stream media world-wide carries and are not aware of the real lack of either consensus or agreement regarding the concept of climate change, either warming or cooling, being caused by humanity.  <br />
<br />
The other day I was in an automobile dealership in Florida and noticed a "Global Warming Rating" for the cars there.  I jokingly said to the salesman that I wasn't going to buy a car there because they obviously supported the Global Warming concept especially since it hasn't been warming since 1988.  He had no idea what I was talking about and was genuinely surprised (or thought I was crazy) when I explained to him that since the temperature high of 1998, we have not had higher temperatures, and recently the temps have actually been cooling slightly.  In my opinion, he is typical of the majority of Americans (maybe even most folks world-wide) in that he sees, hears, and reads what the main stream media feeds him and from that one would think that warming is continuing every year and getting worse.<br />
<br />
Therefore, one thing I believe all of us who do not support the Global Warming concept should constantly mention is this simple truth - we have not warmed since 1998.  Sure we might begin warming again, but showing that we are being deceived now by the AGW crowd may plant doubt in the minds of those who are being led by the main stream media.</blockquote>
<br />
While I know it is just one small thing - getting a wider group of folks knowing what the global temperature has been doing - I wonder what other easy to understand facts should be publicized as much as possible to reach the general public?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[I just posted this on the WUWT site:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><cite>Quote:</cite>In the spirit of "Tips &amp; Notes to WUWT" -<br />
<br />
As a layman regarding climate in general, but one who is observing articles here and on other "skeptical" sites, I'm aware of a number of different scientific discussions that do not lead to support of AGW.<br />
<br />
However, I believe that various polls show that a majority of the "non-involved" folks are being led by what the main stream media world-wide carries and are not aware of the real lack of either consensus or agreement regarding the concept of climate change, either warming or cooling, being caused by humanity.  <br />
<br />
The other day I was in an automobile dealership in Florida and noticed a "Global Warming Rating" for the cars there.  I jokingly said to the salesman that I wasn't going to buy a car there because they obviously supported the Global Warming concept especially since it hasn't been warming since 1988.  He had no idea what I was talking about and was genuinely surprised (or thought I was crazy) when I explained to him that since the temperature high of 1998, we have not had higher temperatures, and recently the temps have actually been cooling slightly.  In my opinion, he is typical of the majority of Americans (maybe even most folks world-wide) in that he sees, hears, and reads what the main stream media feeds him and from that one would think that warming is continuing every year and getting worse.<br />
<br />
Therefore, one thing I believe all of us who do not support the Global Warming concept should constantly mention is this simple truth - we have not warmed since 1998.  Sure we might begin warming again, but showing that we are being deceived now by the AGW crowd may plant doubt in the minds of those who are being led by the main stream media.</blockquote>
<br />
While I know it is just one small thing - getting a wider group of folks knowing what the global temperature has been doing - I wonder what other easy to understand facts should be publicized as much as possible to reach the general public?]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ClimateGate and the Elitist Roots of Global Warming Alarmism]]></title>
			<link>http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-324.html</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:52:07 -0600</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-324.html</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Global Warming<br />
<br />
November 21st, 2009 <br />
<br />
By Roy Spencer, Ph. D.<br />
<br />
EXCERPT:<br />
<br />
The hundreds of e-mails being made public after someone hacked into Phil Jones’ Climatic Research Unit (CRU) computer system offer a revealing peek inside the IPCC machine. It will take some time before we know whether any illegal activity has been uncovered (e.g. hiding or destruction of data to avoid Freedom of Information Act inquiries).<br />
<br />
Some commentators even think this is the beginning of the end for the IPCC. I doubt it.<br />
<br />
The scientists at the center of this row are defending themselves. Phil Jones has claimed that some of the more alarming statements in his e-mails have been taken out of context. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/climategate-and-the-elitist-roots-of-global-warming-alarmism/" target="_blank">LINK</a><br />
==================================================<br />
<span style="color: #0000CD;">He is not happy about fellow scientists conduct.</span>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Global Warming<br />
<br />
November 21st, 2009 <br />
<br />
By Roy Spencer, Ph. D.<br />
<br />
EXCERPT:<br />
<br />
The hundreds of e-mails being made public after someone hacked into Phil Jones’ Climatic Research Unit (CRU) computer system offer a revealing peek inside the IPCC machine. It will take some time before we know whether any illegal activity has been uncovered (e.g. hiding or destruction of data to avoid Freedom of Information Act inquiries).<br />
<br />
Some commentators even think this is the beginning of the end for the IPCC. I doubt it.<br />
<br />
The scientists at the center of this row are defending themselves. Phil Jones has claimed that some of the more alarming statements in his e-mails have been taken out of context. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/climategate-and-the-elitist-roots-of-global-warming-alarmism/" target="_blank">LINK</a><br />
==================================================<br />
<span style="color: #0000CD;">He is not happy about fellow scientists conduct.</span>]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Bishop Hill’s compendium of CRU email issues]]></title>
			<link>http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-304.html</link>
			<pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 10:01:13 -0600</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-304.html</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Watts Up With That?<br />
<br />
11/22/2009<br />
<br />
SELECTED EXCERPT:<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Climate cuttings 33</span><br />
<br />
If you are interested in more on global warming material, check out Caspar and the Jesus Paper and The Yamal Implosion, or check out the forthcoming book.<br />
<br />
General reaction seems to be that the CRUgate emails are genuine, but with the caveat that there could be some less reliable stuff slipped in.<br />
<br />
In the circumstances, here are some summaries of the CRUgate files. I’ll update these as and when I can. The refs are the email number.<br />
<br />
    * Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.(1256765544)<br />
    * Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)<br />
    * Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709). Analysis of impact here. Wow!<br />
    * Phil Jones describes the death of sceptic, John Daly, as “cheering news”.(1075403821)<br />
<br />
<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/bishop-hills-compendium-of-cru-email-issues/" target="_blank">LINK FOR A LOT MORE</a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Watts Up With That?<br />
<br />
11/22/2009<br />
<br />
SELECTED EXCERPT:<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Climate cuttings 33</span><br />
<br />
If you are interested in more on global warming material, check out Caspar and the Jesus Paper and The Yamal Implosion, or check out the forthcoming book.<br />
<br />
General reaction seems to be that the CRUgate emails are genuine, but with the caveat that there could be some less reliable stuff slipped in.<br />
<br />
In the circumstances, here are some summaries of the CRUgate files. I’ll update these as and when I can. The refs are the email number.<br />
<br />
    * Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.(1256765544)<br />
    * Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)<br />
    * Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709). Analysis of impact here. Wow!<br />
    * Phil Jones describes the death of sceptic, John Daly, as “cheering news”.(1075403821)<br />
<br />
<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/bishop-hills-compendium-of-cru-email-issues/" target="_blank">LINK FOR A LOT MORE</a>]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Breaking News Story: Hadley CRU has apparently been hacked  hundreds of files r]]></title>
			<link>http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-302.html</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:52:33 -0600</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-302.html</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[<span style="color: red;">This is serious news!</span><br />
<br />
Watts Up With That?<br />
<br />
11/19/2009<br />
<br />
EXCERPT:<br />
<br />
The details on this are still sketchy, well probably never know what went on. But it appears that Hadley Climate Research Unit has been hacked and many many files have been released by the hacker or person unknown.<br />
<br />
Im currently traveling and writing this from an aiprort, but here is what I know so far:<br />
<br />
An unknown person put postings on some climate skeptic websites that advertsied an FTP file on a Russian FTP server, here is the message that was placed on the Air Vent today:<br />
<br />
    We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to<br />
    be kept under wraps.<br />
<br />
    We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents<br />
<br />
<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/#more-12937" target="_blank">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/br...more-12937</a><br />
====================================================<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">This is HOT!<br />
<br />
Go read in the link for more details.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">WOW.WOW....... wow...........</span>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<span style="color: red;">This is serious news!</span><br />
<br />
Watts Up With That?<br />
<br />
11/19/2009<br />
<br />
EXCERPT:<br />
<br />
The details on this are still sketchy, well probably never know what went on. But it appears that Hadley Climate Research Unit has been hacked and many many files have been released by the hacker or person unknown.<br />
<br />
Im currently traveling and writing this from an aiprort, but here is what I know so far:<br />
<br />
An unknown person put postings on some climate skeptic websites that advertsied an FTP file on a Russian FTP server, here is the message that was placed on the Air Vent today:<br />
<br />
    We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to<br />
    be kept under wraps.<br />
<br />
    We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents<br />
<br />
<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/#more-12937" target="_blank">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/br...more-12937</a><br />
====================================================<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">This is HOT!<br />
<br />
Go read in the link for more details.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">WOW.WOW....... wow...........</span>]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Gavin Schmidt - Models are Wrong]]></title>
			<link>http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-254.html</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 02 Oct 2009 02:11:08 -0500</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-254.html</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[According to Gavin Schmidt:<br />
<br />
"All climate models are wrong, but some of them are useful, and by working more closely to answer the questions that are actually being posed by policymakers, we can make them more useful still."<br />
<br />
<a href="http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/indepth/40528" target="_blank">http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/indepth/40528</a><br />
<br />
The IOP is pushing climate change very strong in this issue ... I wonder why?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[According to Gavin Schmidt:<br />
<br />
"All climate models are wrong, but some of them are useful, and by working more closely to answer the questions that are actually being posed by policymakers, we can make them more useful still."<br />
<br />
<a href="http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/indepth/40528" target="_blank">http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/indepth/40528</a><br />
<br />
The IOP is pushing climate change very strong in this issue ... I wonder why?]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Four degrees of warming 'likely']]></title>
			<link>http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-253.html</link>
			<pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:04:35 -0500</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-253.html</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Not sure this is the right forum:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8279654.stm" target="_blank">Four degrees of warming 'likely' </a><br />
<br />
<blockquote><cite>Quote:</cite>In a dramatic acceleration of forecasts for global warming, UK scientists say the global average temperature could rise by 4C (7.2F) as early as 2060.<br />
<br />
The Met Office study used projections of fossil fuel use that reflect the trend seen over the last 20 years.<br />
<br />
and<br />
<br />
Dr Betts and his colleagues emphasise the uncertainties inherent in the modelling, particularly the role of the carbon cycle. </blockquote>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Not sure this is the right forum:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8279654.stm" target="_blank">Four degrees of warming 'likely' </a><br />
<br />
<blockquote><cite>Quote:</cite>In a dramatic acceleration of forecasts for global warming, UK scientists say the global average temperature could rise by 4C (7.2F) as early as 2060.<br />
<br />
The Met Office study used projections of fossil fuel use that reflect the trend seen over the last 20 years.<br />
<br />
and<br />
<br />
Dr Betts and his colleagues emphasise the uncertainties inherent in the modelling, particularly the role of the carbon cycle. </blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Is abiotic oil becoming mainstream..]]></title>
			<link>http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-243.html</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:44:12 -0500</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-243.html</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Hi All,<br />
Over at Greenworld trust Richard111 posted this, about an interesting workshop back in May 2008.<br />
It is interesting and errr, quite surprising it seems to have slipped by us all here.. <br />
<br />
Richard111 posted,<br />
There is more going on the world of carbon than you might realise. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.gl.ciw.edu/deep_carbon_project" target="_blank">http://www.gl.ciw.edu/deep_carbon_project</a> <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.gl.ciw.edu/workshops/sloan_deep_carbon_workshop_may_2008" target="_blank">http://www.gl.ciw.edu/workshops/sloan_de...p_may_2008</a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Hi All,<br />
Over at Greenworld trust Richard111 posted this, about an interesting workshop back in May 2008.<br />
It is interesting and errr, quite surprising it seems to have slipped by us all here.. <br />
<br />
Richard111 posted,<br />
There is more going on the world of carbon than you might realise. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.gl.ciw.edu/deep_carbon_project" target="_blank">http://www.gl.ciw.edu/deep_carbon_project</a> <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.gl.ciw.edu/workshops/sloan_deep_carbon_workshop_may_2008" target="_blank">http://www.gl.ciw.edu/workshops/sloan_de...p_may_2008</a>]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[AGW is a dead hypothesis?]]></title>
			<link>http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-227.html</link>
			<pubDate>Sun, 06 Sep 2009 21:06:56 -0500</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-227.html</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[The poll is your chance to put your vote in,where you are sure of the science.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[The poll is your chance to put your vote in,where you are sure of the science.]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Do not cite, do not quote..]]></title>
			<link>http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-212.html</link>
			<pubDate>Sat, 29 Aug 2009 05:15:31 -0500</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-212.html</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Hi All,<br />
but it don't say do not link to........<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~wilson/energypmp/IPCC/Ch14_draft3.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~wilson/e...draft3.pdf</a><br />
<br />
Shame really because we do seem to be having a problem with,<br />
"advancing our understanding", don't we....]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Hi All,<br />
but it don't say do not link to........<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~wilson/energypmp/IPCC/Ch14_draft3.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~wilson/e...draft3.pdf</a><br />
<br />
Shame really because we do seem to be having a problem with,<br />
"advancing our understanding", don't we....]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Alan Carlin - EPA update.]]></title>
			<link>http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-189.html</link>
			<pubDate>Sat, 15 Aug 2009 17:48:29 -0500</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-189.html</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Hi All,<br />
Apologies first, in that I should of found the original thread this subject was raised in.<br />
But it escapes me at present unfortunately.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m8d15-An-update-from-Alan-Carlin-on-global-warming-and-the-EPA?cid=examiner-email" target="_blank"><span style="font-weight: bold;">[color=red] <span style="font-size: 25pt;">An update from Alan Carlin on global warming and the EPA</span> </span></a><br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">August 15, Environmental Policy Examiner.<br />
by <br />
Thomas Fuller</span><br />
<br />
Earlier the subject received a good deal of coverage at Anthony Watts blog, WUWT, as a joint story with <br />
the San Francisco Examiner Environmental Policy blogger Thomas Fuller.<br />
  <br />
<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/25/source-inside-epa-confirms-claims-of-science-being-ignored-by-top-epa-management/" target="_blank">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/25/so...anagement/</a><br />
<br />
and,<br />
<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/25/online-global-warming-study-censored-by-epa/" target="_blank">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/25/on...ed-by-epa/</a><br />
<br />
and,<br />
<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/27/released-the-censored-epa-document-final-report/" target="_blank">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/27/re...al-report/</a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Hi All,<br />
Apologies first, in that I should of found the original thread this subject was raised in.<br />
But it escapes me at present unfortunately.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m8d15-An-update-from-Alan-Carlin-on-global-warming-and-the-EPA?cid=examiner-email" target="_blank"><span style="font-weight: bold;">[color=red] <span style="font-size: 25pt;">An update from Alan Carlin on global warming and the EPA</span> </span></a><br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">August 15, Environmental Policy Examiner.<br />
by <br />
Thomas Fuller</span><br />
<br />
Earlier the subject received a good deal of coverage at Anthony Watts blog, WUWT, as a joint story with <br />
the San Francisco Examiner Environmental Policy blogger Thomas Fuller.<br />
  <br />
<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/25/source-inside-epa-confirms-claims-of-science-being-ignored-by-top-epa-management/" target="_blank">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/25/so...anagement/</a><br />
<br />
and,<br />
<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/25/online-global-warming-study-censored-by-epa/" target="_blank">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/25/on...ed-by-epa/</a><br />
<br />
and,<br />
<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/27/released-the-censored-epa-document-final-report/" target="_blank">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/27/re...al-report/</a>]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Discover Magazine and AGW]]></title>
			<link>http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-161.html</link>
			<pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 20:50:46 -0500</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-161.html</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Discover Magazine has long been a promoter of AGW.  Almost every issue has a pro global warming article.  Finally fed up, I sent a letter to the editor ( it wan't published) complaining about the one-sided exposition of the theory.  Apparently several others wrote in with similar complaints and one of those letters was published (September 2009 issue).  The editor's (Corey S. Powell, Science Editor and Adjunct Professor of Science Journalism at NYU) response:<br />
<br />
"Indeed we did handpick the members of our climate roundtable.  We selected widely respected researchers representing four distinct aspects of climate science.  The fact that their views largely coincide accurately represents the overwheming consensus within the scientific community.  Packing our panel with dissenters simply to create the appearance of debate would be neither honest nor illuminating.  The broad conversation that followed did not lend itself to a technical discussion of computer climate models, which is why Ken Caldeira pointed interested readers to the Web site realclimate.org.  It is worth noting, however, that forecasting long-range global climate trends is actually easier than predicting short-term, local weather effects, much as it is simpler to calculate the path of electric current through a set of circuits than it is to anticipate the route of an individual electron. (Just look at your computer for eveidence that such modeling really works.)  Science is often counterintuitive in that way, which is why we solicit the opinions of experts who have spent their entire careers striving to understand the complex operation of the earth's climate."<br />
<br />
[ From Wikipedia: "Ken Caldeira is a scientist who works at the Carnegie Institution for Science's Department of Global Ecology. He researches ocean acidification, climate effects of trees, intentional climate modification, and interactions in the global carbon/climate system.<br />
Caldeira's work was featured in a November 2006 article in The New Yorker, entitled "The Darkening Sea."[1] In 2007, he contributed two op-ed pieces on the subject of global warming to The New York Times.[2][3] He was named a "Hero Scientist of 2008" by New Scientist magazine.]<br />
<br />
<br />
Any comments?  The editor obviously believes that "the debate  is over" so why listen to opposing points of view.  I sometimes get the feeling we are shoveling sand against the tide.  AGW proponents, Gore and his lobby, and the IPCC  have the public media by the short hairs.  Perhaps a response to the editor from a respected scientist on this forum might have a shot a getting published.  Probably not-but it may be worth a try.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Discover Magazine has long been a promoter of AGW.  Almost every issue has a pro global warming article.  Finally fed up, I sent a letter to the editor ( it wan't published) complaining about the one-sided exposition of the theory.  Apparently several others wrote in with similar complaints and one of those letters was published (September 2009 issue).  The editor's (Corey S. Powell, Science Editor and Adjunct Professor of Science Journalism at NYU) response:<br />
<br />
"Indeed we did handpick the members of our climate roundtable.  We selected widely respected researchers representing four distinct aspects of climate science.  The fact that their views largely coincide accurately represents the overwheming consensus within the scientific community.  Packing our panel with dissenters simply to create the appearance of debate would be neither honest nor illuminating.  The broad conversation that followed did not lend itself to a technical discussion of computer climate models, which is why Ken Caldeira pointed interested readers to the Web site realclimate.org.  It is worth noting, however, that forecasting long-range global climate trends is actually easier than predicting short-term, local weather effects, much as it is simpler to calculate the path of electric current through a set of circuits than it is to anticipate the route of an individual electron. (Just look at your computer for eveidence that such modeling really works.)  Science is often counterintuitive in that way, which is why we solicit the opinions of experts who have spent their entire careers striving to understand the complex operation of the earth's climate."<br />
<br />
[ From Wikipedia: "Ken Caldeira is a scientist who works at the Carnegie Institution for Science's Department of Global Ecology. He researches ocean acidification, climate effects of trees, intentional climate modification, and interactions in the global carbon/climate system.<br />
Caldeira's work was featured in a November 2006 article in The New Yorker, entitled "The Darkening Sea."[1] In 2007, he contributed two op-ed pieces on the subject of global warming to The New York Times.[2][3] He was named a "Hero Scientist of 2008" by New Scientist magazine.]<br />
<br />
<br />
Any comments?  The editor obviously believes that "the debate  is over" so why listen to opposing points of view.  I sometimes get the feeling we are shoveling sand against the tide.  AGW proponents, Gore and his lobby, and the IPCC  have the public media by the short hairs.  Perhaps a response to the editor from a respected scientist on this forum might have a shot a getting published.  Probably not-but it may be worth a try.]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>