Global-Warming Warnings Climate

[code1211]

Further from the draft report by the National Climate Assessment & Development Advisory Committee:

"The draft assessment presents a grim picture of the ongoing impact from climate change. Looking to the future, the assessment warns of accelerating effects and the potential to reach a “tipping point” where cumulative climate extremes will exceed mitigation efforts."

Mitigation efforts. Right.

It would be nice if they could prove what the cause is that they are trying to mitigate.

 

[code1211]

It wasn't just wood they were talking about. So, can you provide evidence that preventable forest fires contribute more to global warming than than all our burning of diesel fuel, wood and coal?

What the deniers refuse to accept, or simply do not understand, is that the earth cannot sequester unlimited amounts of CO2 without heating up. Its called the greenhouse effect. It is an accepted scientific principle. Without man's interference, it has been able to sequester all the CO2 produced naturally. However, by our doubling of the CO2 concentration and removal of vegetation that helps in the sequestration, we have overloaded the earth's ability to mitigate the extra C02 without heating up.

Given this horrible occurrence, how much will we warm n the next thirty years?

How much should we have warmed in the last 30 years?

Please, quote the wisest of the wise AGW Scientists.

Don't forget the explanations of why nature does not mimic the models.

 

[code1211]

Thanks for your opinion, I'll go with the researchers that make more sense than you do.

From the OP:

Another aspect of warming is the effect of airborne black carbon particles. A comprehensive analysis indicates that their climate-warming capability is double what was previously believed (J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos., DOI: 10.1002/jgrd.50171).



"Black carbon particles are aggregates of carbon spherules that are produced during combustion of carbon-based fuels. They directly influence climate by strongly absorbing sunlight. When deposited on snow or ice, they reduce the reflectivity of those surfaces and cause melting. Black carbon particles also change the formation and radiation absorptive or reflective properties of clouds, with mixed warming or cooling effects.



Researchers had estimated black carbon climate effects before, but the numbers had varied, says Tami C. Bond, the study’s lead author and an engineering professor at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.



Given the large role black carbon plays in global warming and its shorter lifetime in the atmosphere compared with carbon dioxide and methane, controlling black carbon emissions could be “a short-term, immediate action that we can take to slow climate change,” Bond says.

Diesel engines and household wood and coal burning would be the best black carbon sources to control to limit warming, Bond says."

Not to state the obvious here, but warming has been limited since about the year 2000.

Maybe you man mistakenly put the wrong sign on his equation's solution.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

No, it is you who is once again missing the point. The particulates released by all of the wood fires that humans use in their homes and backyards are quite real and measurable and can clearly affect the environment. In my state, we have 'clean air days' when wood fires are banned and this precaution makes a very obvious and measurable difference in the air quality. Pointing out the fact that controlling and limiting the particulate filled smoke from wood fires, as well as coal and diesel, would be useful in dealing with this black carbon pollution is both sane and useful. Claiming that controlling the particulate pollution that is under our control would not be useful because forest fires sometimes produce more smoke is what is pretty loony. It ignores the fact that the scientist quoted in that article was specifically talking about the factors that humans have some power to change. We can't prevent all of the forest fires but we can, with some effort, control the level of particulates that our industry, transportation and homes produce.

You may find this site interesting IF you are really interested in forest fires and mans use of fire, not just "white men" but native Americans who were apparently very busy warming the climate.

"Evidence for the purposeful use of fire by American Indians (also termed Native Americans, Indigenous People, and First Nations/People) in many ecosystems has been easy to document but difficult to substantiate. Commonly, many people, even researchers and ecologists, discount the fact that the American Indians greatly changed the ecosystems for their use and survival. However, as Daniel Botkin pointed out, these impressions of a "benign people treading lightly on the land" is wrong:"

Most primary or secondary accounts relate to the purposeful burning to establish or keep "mosaics, resource diversity, environmental stability, predictability, and the maintenance of ecotones (Lewis 1985: 77)." These purposeful fires by almost every American Indian tribe differ from natural fires by the seasonality of burning, frequency of burning certain areas, and the intensity of the fire. For those Indian tribes that used fire in ecosystems tended to burn in the late spring just before new growth appears, while in areas that are drier fires tended to be set during the late summer or early fall since the main growth of plants and grasses occurs in the winter. Indians burned selected areas yearly, every other year, or intervals as long as five years. Steve Pyne put much of the Indian use of fire into perspective as he reported that:

the modification of the American continent by fire at the hands of Asian immigrants [now called American Indians, Native Americans, or First Nations/People] was the result of repeated, controlled, surface burns on a cycle of one to three years, broken by occasional holocausts from escape fires and periodic conflagrations during times of drought. Even under ideal circumstances, accidents occurred: signal fires escaped and campfires spread, with the result that valuable range was untimely scorched, buffalo driven away, and villages threatened. Burned corpses on the prairie were far from rare. So extensive were the cumulative effects of these modifications that it may be said that the general consequence of the Indian occupation of the New World was to replace forested land with grassland or savannah, or, where the forest persisted, to open it up and free it from underbrush. Most of the impenetrable woods encountered by explorers were in bogs or swamps from which fire was excluded; naturally drained landscape was nearly everywhere burned. Conversely, almost wherever the European went, forests followed. The Great American Forest may be more a product of settlement than a victim of it (Pyne 1982: 79-80).

Hunting - The burning of large areas was useful to divert big game (deer, elk, bison) into small unburned areas for easier hunting and provide open prairies/meadows (rather than brush and tall trees) where animals (including ducks and geese) like to dine on fresh, new grass sprouts. Fire was also used to drive game into impoundments, narrow chutes, into rivers or lakes, or over cliffs where the animals could be killed easily. Some tribes used a surround fire to drive rabbits into small areas. The Seminoles even practiced hunting alligators with fire. Torches were used to spot deer and attract or see fish at night. Smoke used to drive/dislodge raccoons and bears from hiding.
Crop management - Burning was used to harvest crops, especially tarweed, yucca, greens, and grass seed collection. In addition, fire was used to prevent abandoned fields from growing over and to clear areas for planting corn and tobacco. One report of fire being used to bring rain (overcome drought). Clearing ground of grass and brush to facilitate the gathering of acorns. Fire used to roast mescal and obtain salt from grasses.
Improve growth and yields - Fire was often used to improve grass for big game grazing (deer, elk, antelope, bison), horse pasturage, camas reproduction, seed plants, berry plants (especially raspberries, strawberries, and huckleberries), and tobacco.
Fireproof areas - Some indications that fire was used to protect certain medicine plants by clearing an area around the plants, as well as to fireproof areas, especially around settlements, from destructive wildfires. Fire was also used to keep prairies open from encroaching shrubs and trees.
Insect collection - Some tribes used a "fire surround" to collect & roast crickets, grasshoppers, pandora moths in pine forests, and collect honey from bees.
Pest management - Burning was sometimes used to reduce insects (black flies & mosquitos) and rodents, as well as kill mistletoe that invaded mesquite and oak trees and kill the tree moss favored by deer (thus forcing them to the valleys where hunting was easier). Some tribes also used fire to kill poisonous snakes.
Warfare & signaling - Use of fire to deprive the enemy of hiding places in tall grasses and underbrush in the woods for defense, as well as using fire for offensive reasons or to escape from their enemies. Smoke signals used to alert tribes about possible enemies or in gathering forces to combat enemies. Large fires also set to signal a gathering of tribes. During the Lewis & Clark expedition, a tree was set on fire by Indians in order to "bring fair weather" for their journey.
Economic extortion - Some tribes also used fire for a "scorched-earth" policy to deprive settlers and fur traders from easy access to big game and thus benefitting from being "middlemen" in supplying pemmican and jerky.
Clearing areas for travel - Fires were sometimes started to clear trails for travel through areas that were overgrown with grass or brush. Burned areas helped with providing better visibility through forests and brush lands for hunting and warfare purposes.
Felling trees - Fire was reportedly used to fell trees by boring two intersecting holes into the trunk, then drop burning charcoal in one hole, allowing the smoke to exit from the other. This method was also used by early settlers. Another way to kill trees was to surround the base with fire, allowing the bark and/or the trunk to burn causing the tree to die (much like girdling) and eventually topple over. Fire also used to kill trees so that the wood could later be used for dry kindling (willows) and firewood (aspen).
Clearing riparian areas - Fire was commonly used to clear brush from riparian areas and marshes for new grasses and tree sprouts (to benefit beaver, muskrats, moose, and waterfowl).
The following references are part of a growing literature of the intentional use of fire by American Indians in English speaking portions


American Indian Use of Fire in Ecosystems References

 

[Catawba]

The article disingenuously states that 2012 is one of the ten warmest. If we are in a warming trend and near the end of that trend, of course this wold be true. Why don't they say it's the 9th or tenth warmest? Whenever inaccuracy aids their case, inaccuracy is what AGW proponents will use.

Does real science rely on inaccuracy, implication and innuendo? No so much. Running a swindle is where these tactics are most often found. In about the year 2000 the warming of 20 years flattened out. It does after every 20 year warming period and has since 1880.

It has happened again. Because this is a predictable occurrence of climate, it has no place in AGW Science.

If it is actually useful, to the AGW Scientist, it's useless.

By the by, if the new and improved black CO2 is so potent, why has the warming stalled?


2012 Global Temps Rank in Top 10 Hottest On Record | Climate Central

You missed this part: “What matters is this decade is warmer than the last decade, and that decade was warmer than the decade before,” explains Gavin Schmidt, climatologist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. “The planet is warming. The reason it’s warming is because we are pumping increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.”

From the foremost climate research institute:

"The earth is expected to maintain the record warmth that has been observed over the last decade," said Julia Slingo, Hadley Centre chief scientist, in a statement this week.

Natural influences are probably responsible for the slowdown, with candidates including a declining solar cycle since 2002 and the mixing of heat into the deep ocean, which has a vast storage capacity.

The basic physics of greenhouse gases still leaves no doubt that rising carbon emissions will push global temperatures up this century, and dangerously so."


Read more: Slowing global warming no cause for complacency

 

[Catawba]

Mitigation efforts. Right.

It would be nice if they could prove what the cause is that they are trying to mitigate.

There hasn't been a dissenting scientific opinion since 2007 from any of the world's science academies.

 

[flogger]

There hasn't been a dissenting scientific opinion since 2007 from any of the world's science academies.

Now where have we heard that line before......... ? :lamo

Ultimately whose environment is it ? Who has the authority to decide what the environment ought to be ? Suppose there really were man-made global warming ? So what ? Who decides the climate ought to be cooler ? Why should those who prefer a cooler climate be able to force their preference on those who would prefer a warmer climate ? This whole affair is just the same old politics of envy bias wrapped in a trendy green shroud which you have let slip is your principle motivation here time and time again. Its the imposition of your extreme worldview upon the rest of us that concerns you not what the climate is doing, thats just the current excuse you are using to facilitate it.

 

[livefree]

Now where have we heard that line before......... ?

Ultimately whose environment is it ? Who has the authority to decide what the environment ought to be ? Suppose there really were man-made global warming ? So what ? Who decides the climate ought to be cooler ? Why should those who prefer a cooler climate be able to force their preference on those who would prefer a warmer climate ? This whole affair is just the same old politics of envy bias wrapped in a trendy green shroud which you have let slip is your principle motivation here time and time again. Its the imposition of your extreme worldview upon the rest of us that concerns you not what the climate is doing, thats just the current excuse you are using to facilitate it.

Just more insane drivel with no connection to reality.

 

[code1211]

You missed this part: “What matters is this decade is warmer than the last decade, and that decade was warmer than the decade before,” explains Gavin Schmidt, climatologist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. “The planet is warming. The reason it’s warming is because we are pumping increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.”

From the foremost climate research institute:

"The earth is expected to maintain the record warmth that has been observed over the last decade," said Julia Slingo, Hadley Centre chief scientist, in a statement this week.

Natural influences are probably responsible for the slowdown, with candidates including a declining solar cycle since 2002 and the mixing of heat into the deep ocean, which has a vast storage capacity.

The basic physics of greenhouse gases still leaves no doubt that rising carbon emissions will push global temperatures up this century, and dangerously so."


Read more: Slowing global warming no cause for complacency

So, to be clear, when it's warming, it's because CO2 is the prime driver of climate and there can be no other cause.

When it's cooling, the all powerful prime driver of climate is pushed aside by something they really can't identify but know for sure that it has overpowered the CO2.

Convenient chain of causation if one is asserting an agenda, don't you think?

The ocean is storing heat? The Argo Array of buoys shows this to be untrue.

 

[Manc Skipper]

The ocean is storing heat? The Argo Array of buoys shows this to be untrue.

Which blog did you find that in?

 

[code1211]

There hasn't been a dissenting scientific opinion since 2007 from any of the world's science academies.

SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims - Challenge UN IPCC & Gore | Climate Depot
<snip>
More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report -- updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report's release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit in being held in Cancun.
<snip>
Other UN scientists were more blunt. A South African UN scientist declared the UN IPCC a "worthless carcass" and noted IPCC chair Pachauri is in "disgrace". He also explained that the "fraudulent science continues to be exposed." Alexander, a former member of the UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters harshly critiqued the UN. "'I was subjected to vilification tactics at the time. I persisted. Now, at long last, my persistence has been rewarded...There is no believable evidence to support [the IPCC] claims. I rest my case!" See: S. African UN Scientist Calls it! 'Climate change - RIP: Cause of Death: No scientifically believable evidence...Deliberate manipulation to suit political objectives' [Also see: New Report: UN Scientists Speak Out On Global Warming -- As Skeptics!] Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook, a professor of geology at Western Washington University, summed up the scandal on December 3, 2010: "The corruption within the IPCC revealed by the Climategate scandal, the doctoring of data and the refusal to admit mistakes have so severely tainted the IPCC that it is no longer a credible agency."
<snip>

 

[Catawba]

So, to be clear, when it's warming, it's because CO2 is the prime driver of climate and there can be no other cause.

No, in the past there have been other drivers, solar maximums and huge volcanic events. During most of this warming period we have been at a solar minimum and there have been no huge volcanic events.

When it's cooling, the all powerful prime driver of climate is pushed aside by something they really can't identify but know for sure that it has overpowered the CO2.

Each of the last 3 decades, the earth has gotten warmer, not cooler.

Convenient chain of causation if one is asserting an agenda, don't you think?

Only to those that do not understand science and the scientific findings that have been made.

The ocean is storing heat? The Argo Array of buoys shows this to be untrue.

Again, you claim your misinterpretation to be fact, when it is not:

"The global Argo dataset is not yet long enough to observe global change signals."
Global Change Analysis

 

[code1211]

Which blog did you find that in?

Alittle rag called "The International Journal of Geosciences".

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/KD_InPress_final.pdf
<snip>
Abstract
A recently published estimate of Earth’s global warming trend is 0.63 ± 0.28 W/m2, as calculated from ocean heat con- tent anomaly data spanning 1993–2008. This value is not representative of the recent (2003–2008) warming/cooling rate because of a “flattening” that occurred around 2001–2002. Using only 2003–2008 data from Argo floats, we find by four different algorithms that the recent trend ranges from –0.010 to –0.160 W/m2 with a typical error bar of ±0.2 W/m2. These results fail to support the existence of a frequently-cited large positive computed radiative imbalance.
<snip>

 

[Catawba]

SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims - Challenge UN IPCC & Gore | Climate Depot
<snip>
More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report -- updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report's release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit in being held in Cancun.
<snip>
Other UN scientists were more blunt. A South African UN scientist declared the UN IPCC a "worthless carcass" and noted IPCC chair Pachauri is in "disgrace". He also explained that the "fraudulent science continues to be exposed." Alexander, a former member of the UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters harshly critiqued the UN. "'I was subjected to vilification tactics at the time. I persisted. Now, at long last, my persistence has been rewarded...There is no believable evidence to support [the IPCC] claims. I rest my case!" See: S. African UN Scientist Calls it! 'Climate change - RIP: Cause of Death: No scientifically believable evidence...Deliberate manipulation to suit political objectives' [Also see: New Report: UN Scientists Speak Out On Global Warming -- As Skeptics!] Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook, a professor of geology at Western Washington University, summed up the scandal on December 3, 2010: "The corruption within the IPCC revealed by the Climategate scandal, the doctoring of data and the refusal to admit mistakes have so severely tainted the IPCC that it is no longer a credible agency."
<snip>

A blog study? Really? LOL!

As noted previously, There hasn't been a dissenting scientific opinion since 2007 from any of the world's science academies.

Do let us know when these "blog scientists" have gained enough credibility to have even one of the world's many science academies take note.

 

[code1211]

No, in the past there have been other drivers, solar maximums and huge volcanic events. During most of this warming period we have been at a solar minimum and there have been no huge volcanic events.



Each of the last 3 decades, the earth has gotten warmer, not cooler.



Only to those that do not understand science and the scientific findings that have been made.



Again, you claim your misinterpretation to be fact, when it is not:

"The global Argo dataset is not yet long enough to observe global change signals."
Global Change Analysis

Your blog on ARGO shows temperatures from the 70's when ARGO was not deployed until 2003. The measure of the ocean's temperature before ARGO was just a random recording of unrelated, happenstance bits of this and that. Hardly data at all.

The CO2 continues to increase and the temperature rise has stalled.

The data says what it says.

 

[code1211]

A blog study? Really? LOL!

As noted previously, There hasn't been a dissenting scientific opinion since 2007 from any of the world's science academies.

Do let us know when these "blog scientists" have gained enough credibility to have even one of the world's many science academies take note.

I see...

You have greater respect for a building than for the people who are inside it. Good for you.

 

[Catawba]

Your blog on ARGO shows temperatures from the 70's when ARGO was not deployed until 2003. The measure of the ocean's temperature before ARGO was just a random recording of unrelated, happenstance bits of this and that. Hardly data at all.

The CO2 continues to increase and the temperature rise has stalled.

The data says what it says.

LOL! That was ARGO's website! And what ARGO states is that, ""The global Argo dataset is not yet long enough to observe global change signals."

But nice try!

 

[Catawba]

I see...

You have greater respect for a building than for the people who are inside it. Good for you.

LOL! You don't even know what science academies are!

 

[code1211]

LOL! That was ARGO's website! And what ARGO states is that, ""The global Argo dataset is not yet long enough to observe global change signals."

But nice try!

That's a good observation from ARGO with regard to its own data.

It does nothing to enhance the dependability or accuracy of the data that came before.

 

[code1211]

LOL! You don't even know what science academies are!

Well, according to you, they have no relationship to scientists.

 

[livefree]

SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims - Challenge UN IPCC & Gore | Climate Depot

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....one of the more obvious of the fossil fuel industry sponsored propaganda outlets and one of the slimiest.

Climate Depot
ClimateDepot.com is the website of Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow employee Marc Morano, a conservative global warming denier who previously served as environmental communications director for a vocal political denier of climate change, Republican Sen. James Inhofe. Funding: ClimateDepot.com is being financed by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a nonprofit in Washington that advocates for free-market solutions to environmental issues. Public tax filings for 2003-7 (the last five years for which documents are available) show that the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the ExxonMobil Foundation and foundations associated with the billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, a longtime financier of conservative causes.
(source: SourceWatch)

Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)
CFACT received $710, 000 between 1991 and 2002 from Richard Mellon Scaife controlled foundations, the Carthage Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation. (http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=1379)
CFACT - Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow has received $582,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

 

[Muhammed]

“What matters is this decade is warmer than the last decade, and that decade was warmer than the decade before,” explains Gavin Schmidt, climatologist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. “The planet is warming. The reason it’s warming is because we are pumping increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.”

Gavin Schmidt is one of those Playstation climatologists and prolific member of the infamous "Hockey Team" over at the RC blog.

In one of the climategate e-mails Schmidt sent to Michael Mann he advocates the suppression of open science.

He's an anti-science zealot and anything he says must be taken with a mountain of salt.

 

[livefree]

Gavin Schmidt is one of those Playstation climatologists and prolific member of the infamous "Hockey Team" over at the RC blog.

In one of the climategate e-mails Schmidt sent to Michael Mann he advocates the suppression of open science.

He's an anti-science zealot and anything he says must be taken with a mountain of salt.

Total BS from someone who knows nothing about science. Parroting the lies of your cult won't change reality.

Dr. Schmidt is an eminent scientist who has been greatly honored by his peers, who actually do know something about science.

Dr. Gavin Schmidt is a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and is interested in modeling past, present and future climate. He works on developing and improving coupled climate models and, in particular, is interested in how their results can be compared to paleoclimatic proxy data. He has worked on assessing the climate response to multiple forcings, including solar irradiance, atmospheric chemistry, aerosols, and greenhouse gases.

He received a BA (Hons) in Mathematics from Oxford University, a PhD in Applied Mathematics from University College London and was a NOAA Postdoctoral Fellow in Climate and Global Change Research. He is a co-chair of the CLIVAR/PAGES Intersection Panel and is an Associate Editor for the Journal of Climate. He was cited by Scientific American as one of the 50 Research Leaders of 2004, and has worked on Education and Outreach with the American Museum of Natural History, the College de France and the New York Academy of Sciences. He has over 90 peer-reviewed publications and is the co-author with Josh Wolfe of “Climate Change: Picturing the Science” (W. W. Norton, 2009), a collaboration between climate scientists and photographers. He was awarded the inaugural AGU Climate Communications Prize in 2011.
(source)

 

[code1211]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....one of the more obvious of the fossil fuel industry sponsored propaganda outlets and one of the slimiest.

Climate Depot
ClimateDepot.com is the website of Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow employee Marc Morano, a conservative global warming denier who previously served as environmental communications director for a vocal political denier of climate change, Republican Sen. James Inhofe. Funding: ClimateDepot.com is being financed by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a nonprofit in Washington that advocates for free-market solutions to environmental issues. Public tax filings for 2003-7 (the last five years for which documents are available) show that the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the ExxonMobil Foundation and foundations associated with the billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, a longtime financier of conservative causes.
(source: SourceWatch)

Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)
CFACT received $710, 000 between 1991 and 2002 from Richard Mellon Scaife controlled foundations, the Carthage Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation. (http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=1379)
CFACT - Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow has received $582,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

Where's the link that says that the 1000 scientists have not departed from the chorus or that there is proof that the notion of AGW is actually happening?

Sourcewatch?

 

[code1211]

Gavin Schmidt is one of those Playstation climatologists and prolific member of the infamous "Hockey Team" over at the RC blog.

In one of the climategate e-mails Schmidt sent to Michael Mann he advocates the suppression of open science.

He's an anti-science zealot and anything he says must be taken with a mountain of salt.

Anytime anyone cites the hockey stick as an accurate representation of anything, it's laughable.