Nov 04

Despite Al Gore’s pronoucment that “the debate is over”, alarmist David Appell nevertheless faced off against skeptic climatologist Dr. Tim Ball on The Victoria Taft Show on Monday night on Portland, Oregon’s KPAM AM 860.

Appell has a recent piece in Scientific American that contends even now that the Hockey Stick is alive and well.

Here’s the audio of the debate:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Update (11/6/2009):

Victoria Taft writes via e-mail to tell of her blog devoted to her collection of David Appell (who apparently is a chronic blog lurker) rants: David Explains It All.

One example:

You are exactly the kind of fool the Bush administration is counting on — hardheaded, impervious to evidence, scared ****less that some terrorist is going to blow up your mailbox, and willing to grant the government any power if they will just protect you.

6 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share

47 Responses to “Rare global warming debate: Skeptic climatologist Dr. Tim Ball vs. alarmist science journalist David Appell”

  1. Michael Duvinak says:

    Appell still believes in the hockey stick theory? I thought that was debunked last year. I suppose even after something is debunked, you can still say it and make it true again.

       0 likes

  2. gt says:

    It’s quite obvious the hostess has her own take of the issue.

       0 likes

    • Klockarman says:

      Yes, it is. She’s a conservative radio talk show host.

      Thanks for reading the blog, and for your comment.

         0 likes

      • gt says:

        Thanks for the reply. I made the comment while only a few minutes into the clip. Now I am halfway through and it’s worse than I think. I am a skeptic, but this type of debate doesn’t put skeptics in a good light, I don’t think. It’s okay for the hostess to have an opinion herself, but she should have been fair to both debaters. It is very obvious she aligned with Tim Ball and attempted to interrogate David Appell. That’s not how things should be done, to put it mildly.

        I strongly argue the science is on the skeptics’ side, and the best way to get points across is to stay with the facts, along with openness to discussion, and a persuasive yet non-confrontational tone. Unfortunately Victoria didn’t do that.

           0 likes

        • Klockarman says:

          I don’t have a problem with Taft’s editorializing. Appell is from near Portland, and is well aware of Taft’s point of view. So, it wasn’t like he was surprised at Taft’s stance. He knew what he was getting in to.

             0 likes

          • papertiger says:

            But GT you know we’ve had decaded of onesided reporters, school programs, peoples careers destroyed, blaiming, editing, cutting off discussion of anyone who questioned Al Gore promoted global warming.

            They have pushed this fraud in this manner. It wasn’t our side’s decision to be combative. One single reporter with an opinion in our favor isn’t nearly equal to the systematic abuses , all out propaganda campaign aimed at children, strong arming of corporations, government officials being bought off with vacations to exotic locals, commercial political ad buys disguised as Public Service announcements…. The list goes on and on.

            For Tim Ball to be on the air at all, much more so with a sympathetic reporter, is a minor miracle.

               1 likes

            • Klockarman says:

              Like I said on an earlier comment from another reader, Victoria Taft is a conservative talk show host, so she would not be considered a reporter, per se. So, I don’t really think it’s a miracle that Dr. Ball would show up to the debate on her show, but it is somewhat of a miracle that Appell would show up – and it’s doubtful that Al Gore gave his stamp of approval to Appell’s appearance. Gore wants to stifle debate (”The debate is over!”)

              Thanks for your comment.

                 1 likes

  3. Ron de Haan says:

    Very nice performance from Dr. Ball, respect his deep understanding climate science, factual knowledge and his patient and polite attitude, dealing the creep calling himself a climate journalist. Love the radio talk hostess and her professional attitude, she told the creep to shut up only once.
    A remarkable insight where we are up against.
    Incredible how far the AGW movement has come without any scientific evidence to make their case. AGW = 100% PROPAGANDA, nothing else.
    Thanks for publishing this.

       0 likes

  4. Squidly says:

    Is Appell not aware of the that the hockey stick is beyond being dead?

    And, humans “control the climate” ?

    What a joke.

    Hey Appell, go back to school!

       0 likes

  5. Mike says:

    2 points.
    Appell is a scientific journalist, but doesn’t want to spend the time checking out the data. Says a lot. If he is held to deadlines, he may not have the time, then who does in the journalist world? Who is checking the data? That’s why the world needs people like Steve McIntyre.

    Ball/Victoria didn’t press Appell on CO2 saturation. Given that fact is not under dispute, i.e. the IPCC agrees with it (the degree of saturation is debatable), It would have been interesting to see how well he understands that. His words suggested he didn’t agree with it but it wasn’t explicitly stated. If he had not agreed that there was a saturation point, he would have lost any credibility.

    Victoria:
    I enjoy your show. I’ve got KPAM as one of my memory buttons. Whenever I go down to Portland for business, I always tune in KPAM and hope I get your time slot.

       0 likes

  6. Mike says:

    I should actually check the web site before I make my comments. I now realize this isn’t KPAM’s web site. Too early in the morning. Sorry about that.

       0 likes

  7. David Appell says:

    Tim Ball was throwing out so many proven falsehoods that I could not reply to all of them, or even most of them.

    But let’s take the hockey stick. As a journalist I’ve asked many scientists about it, and not one of them gives any credence to M&M’s analysis. There are just too many other independent analyses that give the same result (Crowley and Lowrey, etc.), and too many physical changes taking place on the Earth, to indicate otherwise.

    Now Martin Tingley, using a completely new mathematical technique, gets essentially the same result. That begins to eliminate the doubt about MBH’s statistical methods.

    Do you want to believe you read on blogs, or what journalists report after talking to the experts?

       0 likes

    • SMS says:

      Nice try David, but no prize for you half hearted attempt at damage control.

      The hockey stick was put into disrepute by the Wegman report, which vindicated M&M.

      There are so many other proxy’s which show the MWP, Roman Warm Period and the Minoan Warm period; that to suggest that the hockey stick is still valid, just shows how incomplete your background is.

      Cheers,

      Steve

         0 likes

      • David Appell says:

        Steve,

        Which studies that report a global MWP do you have in mind?

        Really, I am interested. Please post here or send me an email.

        Also, tell me why it matters, given that our present time is impacted by additional factors that were not present during the MWP or any other eras you mention.

        Thanks,
        David
        appell@nasw.org

           0 likes

      • SMS says:

        David,

        Here is a start: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2393

        If you really wanted to know you could have easily found this site and this article.

        I think you have an aversion to Climateaudit. Your bias of this site has clouded your judgement. Even if you don’t like this site and only go to Realclimate; you still need balance in life. Without balance, your biases determine your outlook.

        So…the assignment is: don’t ask me for the material, go find it yourself.

        Cheers,

        SMS

           0 likes

    • Mike says:

      David:
      I don’t have the statistical expertise to analyze M&M. So I asked somebody I know with a PHD in stats to take a look at it. He had no problem with what they were doing. McKitrick is a PHD at the University of Guelph so his credentials are quite good.

      Falsehoods? Because some of the “experts” on the pro catastrophic AGW said so? I know of lots of experts on the opposing side. He said/She said. Learned a long time ago, go to the raw numbers and make my own judgements. Strongly suggests the pro catastrophic AGW has an agenda.

      Bloggers vs. journalists. Bloggers = people. Journalists = people. Nobody has a monopoly on virtue. One is answerable to him/herself. The other to his/her editor, deadlines and what drives revenue for the media they write in. Catastrophe or projects of catastrophe and telling people we have to care for the environment sells ad space. Environmental journalists have ignored so much data and stories which counter the catastrophic AGW claim, they’ve lost their integrity as far as I am concerned. You yourself said you don’t check the numbers on all the reports because you don’t have time. I understand that. The disdain for bloggers newspapers show might give them a clue as to why they are getting crushed in the market place.

      I did an exercise the other day. I made 3 spread sheets. Each one was 100×100. Shrunk the cells small enough so each one fills one page. Coloured them blue and then made 3 cells white in the first one. Next one, 4 cells white. Last one 6 cells white. That represents CO2 in the atmosphere density, 150 years ago, (288 ppm), now, (388 ppm) and 150 years from now, (588 ppm – assumed a 1.1 ppm per year increase). Take at a little further and of those gains, one 3% is caused by humans. I’m not saying it disproves catastrophic AGW, but it does make one go hmmmm when we are talking about a trace gas we breath out, has gone far beyond those points in history and is critical for life on earth. Without it in the atmosphere, plants die and without plants, life on earth dies. Note, I always had a hard time getting believers to think for themselves. It has turned out to be an extremely effective tool for getting people to question the idea of catastrophic AGW and do some thinking for themselves. I always tell them if they aren’t already doing so, go to RC.

      The critical eye you use on Dr. Ball, needs to be applied in the other direction. That is the roll of the press and they are ignoring it.

      In all sincerity, have a great day. Love your town. I miss the days of going to the Gorge. Kids will do that to you. They aren’t old enough yet.

         0 likes

      • David Appell says:

        > Bloggers vs. journalists. Bloggers = people. Journalists = people.
        > Nobody has a monopoly on virtue

        The standards of journalists are a lot higher than the standards of bloggers. The former make a concerted effort to talk to people on all sides of an issue and objectively report what they say. I see very few bloggers doing that, if any.

        Bloggers are not journalists. Let’s not try to pretend they are.’

           0 likes

        • E. P. McMahon, Ph.D. says:

          Mr Appell seems to rely on peer reviewed articles but doesn’t seem to search out any opposing views, even if peer reviewed. First of all, the peer review process DOES NOT authenticate an article. All it does is represent that some experts in the field think it is not a waste of time to read the article. It may support or disprove a hypothesis. It may add strength to a hypothesis. The second and big issue with the UEA people is they lack integrity and ethics as they suborned the peer review process. UEA shoule be debarred from any public funded grants until they get their house in order and enforce the most basic elements of ethical behavior in their associates. The established fact that Mr Jones refused to publish his data is enough to discredit him – that act is a perversion of scientific inquiry.

          To the AGW hypothesis – there is not one single piece of scientific evidence that supports it. Not one! AGW rests entirely on global circulation models that are demonstrably flawed: they have failed to predict the future for at least ten years; the observable results necessary for their hypothesis to be correct are not here; they fail to properly account for clouds.

          There has been global warming and, more recently, cooling. CO2 is a “greenhouse gas”. But the circulation models add fudge factors (positive feedback on the CO2 effect) which have no basis in fact.

          Finally, to claim that journalists objectively report the facts is just laughable if not tragic.

             0 likes

          • Klockarman says:

            Don’t waste much time waiting for Appell to come back ’round here. He’s vanished since the CRU scandal broke. Since he’s an environmental journalist, he’s probably trying to track down the “Deep Throat” of the scandal, since this is a huge story for any self-respecting environmental journalist (that’s sarcasm for those readers that haven’t figured it out).

            I’m sure Appell is subscribing to the comments which he’s surely reading, but since his argument has lost all credibility, I don’t expect to see him actually post any more comments here anymore. Particularly bothersome to him, I’m sure, is what has now been exposed as a rigged peer-review process. Appell was a big proponent of peer-review, you know.

               0 likes

    • An Inquirer says:

      Mr. Appell, I urge you to have an open mind. There are times you will find truth in bloggers and biases in experts. But I speak to you as one who relies neither on the bloggers nor on experts whose motivation are influenced by political agendas. I have technically examined Mann’s original paper, the follow-up papers by those associated with Mann, the Wegman report, and M&M critique. I could throw out a lot of technical jargon to explain how Mann (and his Team) went wrong – from cherry picking to questionable statistical techniques. However, instead I will offer two points that should be understandable for lay people. First, the vast majority of studies (such as over 90%) on proxies indicate the MWP and the LIA. (You should look at studies generated by experts without a political agenda!) Second, we need not rely on proxy studies; we have physical evidence such as Viking settlements in Greenland, northern advance of tropical plants in China, and retreating glaciers all over the world which reveal organics that thrived during the MWP. Sometimes advanced statistics can hide the obvious!

         0 likes

      • David Appell says:

        What evidence is there that ANYBODY has a political agenda? I see none whatsoever. Instead I see scientists trying to do the best job possible. In all the interviews I’ve ever done, not one of them has ever expressed anything even remotely like a political thought.

        So I’d like to know your evidence for this assertion.

           0 likes

  8. David Appell says:

    Klockarman wrote:
    > ….it’s doubtful that Al Gore gave his stamp of approval to
    > Appell’s appearance.

    This right here says an amazing amount about the skeptic movement.

    Much of it seems rooted simply in Al Gore hatred.

    What makes you think I care one iota what Al Gore thinks? Of anything? Let alone that I somehow need or crave his stamp of approval? Frankly I couldn’t care less what Al Gore thinks, nor do I think he is without his flaws, and I’ve expressed that many times. I’m a journalist — I try to objectively report the facts and the truth. I don’t root for anybody.

       0 likes

    • Klockarman says:

      David, I’ve stated many times on this blog that I do not hate Al Gore. I think he lies about man-made global warming, but I do not hate him. I think he seems to be a pleasant fellow, and a good husband and father (I’m not holding him responsible for the problems his son has had).

      My quip about you not getting Al Gore’s stamp of approval is grounded in the fact that most of the folks on your side of this issue refuse to debate. I’ll give you full credit for doing so. Good job. My comment was not directed at you, but the folks on your side who won’t debate – and they are many (and include Al Gore). Just today, Al Gore claimed that it’s the “deniers” that are preventing debate. LOL! http://algorelied.com/?p=3073

         0 likes

      • David Appell says:

        Again, I could not care less what Al Gore thinks about anything, nor does he influence my thoughts in any way whatsoever.

        I do know that some scientists have told me they won’t engage in debates because (1) the scientific argument about AGW is over and there’s nothing essential to debate about, and (2) the debate setups are almost always unfair and biased and favor skeptics. In fact, it’s only the skeptics who want to debate, and just as it is with every presidential campaign every four years in October, that’s only because they’re desperate.There simply is no debate in the real scientific community about AGW. There is a manufactured debate by skeptics, but it’s PR, not science.

           0 likes

  9. David Appell says:

    > First, the vast majority of studies (such as over 90%) on proxies
    > indicate the MWP and the LIA.

    I’m interested. Can you please give me a list of these studies, both for and against?

    Thanks.

       0 likes

  10. Klockarman says:

    I’ve updated the post with the following:

    Victoria Taft writes via e-mail to tell of her blog devoted to her collection of David Appell (who apparently is a chronic blog lurker) rants: David Explains It All.

    One example:

    You are exactly the kind of fool the Bush administration is counting on — hardheaded, impervious to evidence, scared ****less that some terrorist is going to blow up your mailbox, and willing to grant the government any power if they will just protect you.

       0 likes

  11. Otter says:

    David:

    I am interested in hearing your take on the Roman and Mideival Warm Periods, the LIA, and why they don’t seem to appear on the hockey stick.

       0 likes

  12. Daryl M says:

    Mr. Appell,

    I listened to the debate with Dr. Ball and if I were you, I would be embarrassed and humiliated. As a supposed scientific journalist, you have a remarkable lack of understanding of the issues. Your claim that we should listen to journalists who “talk to experts” rather than blogs is the height of arrogance. After listening to you dodge and evade legitimate questions raised by Ms. Taft and Dr. Ball, you have zero credibility as a journalist and given you apparently have written articles for Scientific American, I guess that is one rag that I will skip in the future.

    WRT your claim that you have spoken with many scientists about the hockey stick and none of them agree with the M&M analysis, that further emphasizes my point. The hockey stick was thoroughly debunked, not just by M&M, but also by Wegman. It is a proven fact that if red noise is fed into Mann et al’s algorithms it will produce a hockey stick. Further to that, Mann et al did their best to withhold their data and algorithms, obviously trying to obfuscate their claims. More recently, with Briffa finally being forced to disclose his Yamal data years after the fact, we can see that he cherry picked tree cores to utilize only the ones that supported his claims. In fact, some of the proxies were inverted to further support the claim that recent temperature changes are “unprecedented”. Your claim that no one agrees with M&M’s claim leaves me frankly stunned.

    Jones is on the record as having refused to release his data and now it is claimed that the data are lost. How convenient.

    Hansen at GISS is widely known to take liberties with the data, again we can thank heros like Steve McIntyre who take the time to audit and attempt reproduce their work, usually uncovering gross mistakes in their methodology.

    Anthony Watts has also tirelessly reviewed the surface record and proven beyond any question that it is fraught with inconsistencies that contribute to a gross overstatement of the surface temperature. Do you not think it is significant that in the early 1990s, a large percentage of the surface stations (e.g., from Siberia) were taken off-line?

    I really laughed at your deflection to Dr. Ball that he should write a paper about the issues he raised. The peer-review process that underlies the IPCC report as well as the hockey stick is clearly a joke. It is widely known that of the supposed 2500 scientists who back the IPCC report, many submitted comments in disagreement that were ignored by the editors. The claim that 2500 scientists back the report is scandalous. The reality is that a small cadre of editors, many of whom are not even scientists edited out comments that did not support the desired conclusion that global warming is caused by man-made CO2. The reality is that the supposed peer-review process of papers like Mann et al is a case of you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours, rather than a broad support.

    If you had any balls as a journalist, you would write about the peer review process, or M&M’s work or Anthony Watts’ work, or the blatant withholding of data by Mann, Briffa and Jones, yet you hide under the protective wing of the supposed consensus. All I can say is that you are in good company. You are no less a fraud than Mann, Briffa, Jones, Hansen and Al Gore, and the rest of the cowards who accepted the Nobel. You should be ashamed.

       0 likes

    • David Appell says:

      Daryl M: When you have the balls to sign your real name to your insults, I will begin to take you seriously. You can write me at appell@nasw.org. Let me know.

         0 likes

      • Daryl M says:

        Mr. Appell, it doesn’t matter whether you take me seriously or not, but I must admit I find it to be a rather baseless claim that my counter-arguments are somehow invalid because I chose not to use my full name. What does that have to do with anything? I guess that’s just another form of deflection. Not that it’s any of your business, but I don’t use my full name on blogs because my email addresses are based on it and I don’t want to receive any more spam than I already receive. Based on the other posts, I can see that I’m not the only one on this blog who does not use their full name.

           0 likes

      • Daryl M says:

        Mr. Appell, I replied to the email address you provided above and it bounced.

        What I was going to say is the following:

        I guess you’ve heard the news about the files from CRU that were released to the public and which Phil Jones has publically admitted are legitimate. I have a copy of the files myself and I am shocked at what was said in the emails. This must make you feel like you’ve been used by the IPCC community.

           0 likes

  13. Michael D Smith says:

    Medieval Warm Period Project.

    760+ scientists from 450+ research institutions from 41 countries… http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

    Read the papers and get back to me. MWP was global.

       0 likes

    • David Appell says:

      MD Smith: You can begin by telling me why I, as a journalist, should trust CO2science.com

      They don’t publish their phone number. They don’t reveal who funds them. Their work is not peer-reviewed or published.

      Why should I trust them? They have all the hallmarks of an astroturf organization. Indeed, I have in the past TRIED to contact them to ask these questions — I found it impossible to get in touch with them.

      Simply put, I see no reason to trust them, scientifically. Or any of their conclusions.

         0 likes

      • Klockarman says:

        FYI David, via the CO2 Science website, here’s their address and phone number:

        Postal Address:
        Center for the Study of
        Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
        P.O. Box 25697
        Tempe, AZ 85285-5697
        USA

        Telephone:
        480-966-3719 (USA)

        There’s also a web form you can fill out to contact them via e-mail at…

        http://www.co2science.org/about/contact_info.php

        Their Chairman, Craig Idso, has published peer-reviewed articles related to this issue, http://www.co2science.org/about/chairman.php :

        CRAIG D. IDSO is the founder and former President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and currently serves as Chairman of the Center’s board of directors. Dr. Idso received his B.S. in Geography from Arizona State University, his M.S. in Agronomy from the University of Nebraska – Lincoln, and his Ph.D. in Geography from Arizona State University, where he studied as one of a small group of University Graduate Scholars.

        Dr. Idso has been involved in the global warming debate for many years and has published peer-reviewed scientific articles on issues related to data quality, the growing season, the seasonal cycle of atmospheric CO2, world food supplies, coral reefs, and urban CO2 concentrations, the latter of which he investigated via a National Science Foundation grant as a faculty researcher in the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University. Since 1998, he has been the editor and a chief contributor to the online magazine CO2 Science.

        Dr Idso is the author of three books, CO2, Global Warming and Species Extinctions, CO2, Global Warming and Coral Reefs and Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change and has produced three video documentaries, Carbon Dioxide and the Climate Crisis: Reality or Illusion?, Carbon Dioxide and the Climate Crisis: Avoiding Plant and Animal Extinctions, and Carbon Dioxide and the Climate Crisis: Doing the Right Thing. He has also lectured in Meteorology at Arizona State University and in Physical Geography at Mesa and Chandler-Gilbert Community Colleges.

        Dr. Idso is a former Director of Environmental Science at Peabody Energy in St. Louis, Missouri, and is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, Arizona-Nevada Academy of Sciences, Association of American Geographers, Ecological Society of America, and The Honor Society of Phi Kappa Phi.

        I don’t know who funds them, and since the man-made global warming machine is funded by Big Green I don’t really care.

           0 likes

      • David Appell says:

        Jim: Who funds CO2science? You don’t care, but everyone else does.

        Isn’t it suspicious that they won’t say?

        You wrote:
        “And I since the man-made global warming machine is funded by Big Green I don’t really care.”

        Big Green? Who are they?

        As far as I can tell, most scientists are funded by government agencies. Do you have evidence otherwise?

           0 likes

        • Klockarman says:

          Big Green which consists of the power-greedy Left, and green energy rent-seekers, among others. Just a few that come to mind: 1. Alliance for Climate Protection 2. Kleiner Perkins 3. Greenpeace 4. George Soros 5. __________(Fill in name of green energy company that can’t compete without subsidies here).

          I wouldn’t necessarily put scientists in the Big Green category, but that’s a whole different subject.

          Regarding CO2 Science funding, their website says:

          As a 501(c)(3) public charity, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change accepts corporate, foundation and individual donations to fund its educational activities. All donations are kept confidential. Please consider supporting the Center.

          It’s a public charity, and donations are kept confidential. Doesn’t bother me at all. If the man-made global warming spin machine will take a good hard look in the mirror at who is funding them, then I’ll try to conjure up some feelings of indignation, but until that happens, I could give a rip.

          Since you are so smart David, why don’t you tell me your solution to make sure that ANY person(s) or organization(s) that seeks to influence the opinion of others and offers “solutions” on the subject of man-made global warming does not get any funding from anyone or any other group else who might profit (either monetarily or politically) from any “solutions” – and at the same time do that without infringing anybody’s 1st Amendment free speech rights? Good luck with that.

          I’m not gullible enough to think that Al Gore, Joe Romm, David Suzuki, and David Appell are just a bunch of altruistic angels that don’t have any self-serving interests in this issue. Of course you do.

          Getting back to your original point that CO2 Science doesn’t publish their phone number and it’s impossible to contact them. You lied. The info you supposedly couldn’t find I was able to find in about 2 seconds by clicking on the “About Us” > “Contact the Center”. Did you even try to find the phone number, or were you just lying to try to prop up your CO2 Science is a climate-boogeyman narative? Go ahead and give them a call David, and ask them all those deep probing questions you’ve been so anxious to ask them.

             0 likes

          • David Appell says:

            If the nebulous and unnamed nature of the donations to CO2 science don’t bother you, Jim, then you are nothing but a willing idiot.

            At first glance, they certainly appear as the classical astroturf organization. Who funds them, and funds their funders? You’re a fool, Jim, if you have no qualms about their funding sources.

            You’re willing blind merely because they produce findings that support your ideology — no other reason, and you know it. That is the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty, and frankly I don’t understand how you could go to sleep at night with such a position.

            They list a phone number? I’ve called it in the past. Go ahead and call them. See if anyone even answers. If they do, ask them for a complete list of their funders. See if they will give it to you. Tell us here.

            As for your list of green sources — I’ve never seen even one of them listed as the funding source on a real climate science paper.

               0 likes

            • Klockarman says:

              Don’t call Jim an idiot, he didn’t write the comment. Do you even know who you are talking to? Are you paying attention?

              I feel as if I’m talking to a wall on the funding of skeptics vs. the funding of alarmists. They are both funded by people and organizations have share biases and values with the people and groups they agree with and believe in. It’s the same for alarmists!

              Climate Progress is part of the Center for American Progress, which is not a scientific organization, but a Progressive political machine. They aren’t setting aside their political interests on the global warming issue, they are offering so-called “solutions” that by no coincidence fall exactly in line with Progressive goals to re-organize society. The Center for American Progress is funded by George Soros, a world famous, and very rich, Progressive political activist who has hired a scientist, Joe Romm (who is also a Progressive), to shill his Progressive “solutions” which are cloaked in junk science.

              You said this about me, but really you’re talking about yourself (and don’t even realize it):

              You’re willing blind merely because they produce findings that support your ideology — no other reason, and you know it. That is the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty, and frankly I don’t understand how you could go to sleep at night with such a position.

              Before you said CO2 Science doesn’t publish their phone number, and now you’re claiming to have called it in the past. Which is it?

                 0 likes

              • Daryl M says:

                A great example of “the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty” is what has been revealed about CRU, specifically Phil Jones, and the rest of the inner circle of AGW proponents that supposedly peer-reviewed the work that underpins the IPCC. The level of corruption and manipulation of truth is shocking.

                For those who haven’t seen the files, here is a link: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=75J4XO4T.

                Go to the Air Vent (kudos to Jeff Id), Climate Audit and Watts Up With That for more info.

                   0 likes

  14. carolynj says:

    According to Nasa & NOAA 2010 is the hottest year on record. 2000-2009 was the hottest decade on record. There is absolutey no disagreement among climate scientists that c02 levels have been increasing and the cause is the burning of fossil fuels. We can calculate the amount of oil, coal, and gas burned in the past 75 years. It is simple. We can then calculate how much c02 should be in the atmosphere. It matches. We can also determine whether the c02 in the atmosphere is natural, or came from the burning of fossil fuels. The isotopes are different. We also know that the c02 levels started to go up exactly when we started burning all the fossil fuels. If you think the c02 is natural then you need to explain what would cause an incremental increase in the last 100 years and back it up with data. You can’t.

       0 likes

  15. [...] Rare global warming debate: Skeptic climatologist Dr. Tim Ball vs. alarmist science journalist David Appell 4.9.09 Link. [...]

       0 likes

  16. DeWayne says:

    It appears round two of Global Warming denier’s has been given new life by this PR front or operation called ‘C3 Headlines’. Climatologists and related scientific fields have overwhelmingly proved decades of CO2 and climate cycling for many millennium, the Artic core samples dating back 430,000 years.

    Gore made no claim of being an expert in climatology,saying only as Vice-Pres ge was advised by the worlds best scientist in these field’s concerning shocking rise in CO2 and Global Temp above the forementioned 430,000 core record.

    It is irrelevant regardless, from years 2001-2013 will show these millennium of cycling limits (CO2/Global-Temp) have not only been exceeded in recent decades, but continue rising as predicted.

    Clean Coal is on the way, and of course Nuclear Plants leave no CO2 footprint, from raw ore to processing, to giving waste (Depleted Uranium) to defense mfg’s… although the Pentagon did find Gloabl Warming sufficient to release Spy/Satellite data to GW Climatologists… it is called ‘Measurements of Earth Data for Environmental Analysis program, or MEDEA’. Apparently the Pentagon is now as tin-hat as Gore… would you say?

       0 likes

  17. DeWayne says:

    One other mention, some dingbat on the fossil-fuel payroll finds a short period (years) ending in a cycle ‘downturn’, then convinces the gullible that a new ice age is upon us, despite the fact the (entire graft) continues an upward trend.

    Take a look at the Artic core sample covering a period of 430,000 years, and until recently CO2-Global Waming cycling within cycle limits, but in recent decades has begun rising above the 430-Millennium cycle limit:
    http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif

       0 likes

Leave a Reply

preload preload preload