Militant Rants

GLOBAL WARMING is a HOAX

Here, this should give those morons who’re populating one of the articles on this site (that isn’t about global warming) something to fawn over with their AGW propaganda attempts.  I challenge them to actually read this book (it’s free, easily downloaded, and not very long) and then debate the points within the book.  Period.

Of course, actually following links, reading material, and coherently responding has been a challenge for at least one of them already, so we’ll see how well this goes over…

I’m sure they’ll get all of their buddies at their little website to come over here to start posing commentary as well.  Like their cut-and-paste response that started it all.  The response that has nothing to do with global warming (only weather) and nothing to do with the article they’re commenting on (which was on economics and the legality around the EPA’s mandating cap-and-trade without Congress).

Let the fun begin!

Note to the commentators: I will only respond to actual, coherent, and on topic responses to information within Joanne Nova’s booklet.  That includes ad hominem aimed at discrediting her.  Debate her FACTS.  Anything you post here aimed at discrediting Ms. Nova rather than debating her facts will be subject to removal.  Any other b.s. you decide to post here that doesn’t fit that criteria will be ignored.  Be warned that I have spoken with Ms. Nova several times in the past and may recruit her to help me respond to you here.

I’m not an anthropomorphic global warming expert nor am I paid by Exxon-Mobil or any of the other oil cartels.  I wish I were, maybe I wouldn’t have to work so hard for a living.  As it is, it’s hard enough doing what I do while also being a skeptic, since much of what I write about revolves around greenies and their little religious beliefs about nature.

Share

Militant Libertarian

Site owner, philosopher, certified genius, and general pain in the establishment's ass.

8 Comments

Militant Libertarian

Awful quiet. These guys were quick to respond in the other thread, but are afraid to say anything here… Interesting…

Reply
LeRoy

Test to see if it will let me post this.

Reply
Militant Libertarian

Apparently it worked. Got something else to say?

Reply
Jim

Yes. Nice trick of you to turn the comments back on. I have a screen capture of this post with comments off.

You’re using wordpress, and you haven’t edited your post since far earlier in the day. In order to turn off comments you have to specifically enter into an edit panel for a post, check a box, and click “save.” The post in question hasn’t even been edited since yesterday midday, so it’s not like you slipped your elbow and your finger at the same time and accidentally turned comments off on the post.

P.S. Your IP address, “Militant Librarian,” and the address of LeRoy are exactly the same. How CUTE! Ya gonna delete this comment?

Turning from the exquisitely, joyfully comic to the serious, there’s no way in Hades I’m going to continue to post here. You’ve demonstrated twice in one 24 hour period that you cannot be trusted.

I’m no fool, but neither do I back down when someone like you messes with the truth. For anybody who wants to see proof of the IP address issue, who wants to see a point-by-point refutation of the earlier post Mr. Turpen refers to at the top, and who wants to see some points addressing Joanne Nova’s booklet, please see the following thread.

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/tag/militant-libertarian/

But post here any more? Hah! After you
1. deleted a post of mine yesterday (then denied it), then
2. blocked comments on a post where you were asking me to post comments, then
3. used a computer with the same IP address to impersonate someone named LeRoy who just happened to come upon this (see also here: http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2010/06/16/global-warming-deniers-issue-smackdown-challenge-close-comments/comment-page-1/#comment-605790 )

I’d have to be craaaazy to do so.

By the way, now you’re in a catch-22. You can delete this comment, which I’m taking screen captures of. Or you can let it remain up with links to documentation of what you’ve done.

I do want to thank you for admitting that global warming does exist after all in your last post.

Ta ta! You’re such a hoot.

Reply
Militant Libertarian

You haven’t proven anything, nor have you done anything to refute Ms. Nova’s book, nor have you shown that I deleted anything or had comments turned off on this thread. Your little “screen capture” is just a box saying comments are turned off, which could have been taken from any of dozens of posts on this site. Many posts are like that here and you could have captured that box from any of them.

As for the “comments on and off” b.s. you’re pulling, yes, WordPress does record when a post is edited and you do have to edit a post to turn comments on and off. Which proves my point, not yours. Since you said yourself that this post hasn’t been edited. So how’d I magically turn the comments back on?

Finally, yes, I posted as LeRoy (my dog’s name) to point out that you were lying. Anyone who bothered following your link from your little site would have seen that you were full of shit. Which makes you look like a liar, which makes everything else you say suspect.

If you don’t like being proven a liar, then stop your baseless accusations.

By the way, thanks for heavily editing my exchange with you when you posted it on your site. Yes, I admitted the globe is probably warming by a whole 00000.7 degrees Celsius. Big whoop. Doesn’t prove it’s man-made, only that it’s getting warmer. You might also be interested in seeing that we’re nowhere near the Medieval Warm Period either. And it was global.

Here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/20/another-indication-of-mwp-and-lia-being-global/

and here:
http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/06/2010-antarctica-peerreviewed-research-ice-core-data-confirms-medieval-period-warmer-than-present.html
(with links to raw data)

and here:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.science-skeptical.de/blog/beispiellose-erwarmung-oder-beispiellose-datenmanipulation/001195/

You might also be interested in this, though I doubt it:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/26/no-statistically-significant-warming-since-1995-a-quick-mathematical-proof/

and possibly this:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/324/5923/78

Wow. Not only was the Medieval Warm Period warmer than we are now (by far), but also had higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Boy, those industrialized 16th century types must really have been going to down with the campfires!

Reply
Militant Libertarian

Erroneous Statement By Peter A. Stott And Peter W. Thorne In Nature Titled “How Best To Log Local Temperatures?”
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/erroneous-statement-by-peter-a-stott-and-peter-w-thorne-in-nature-titled-how-best-to-log-local-temperatures/

An article has appeared in Nature on May 13 2010 titled

Peter A. Stott and Peter W. Thorne, 2010: How best to log local temperatures? Nature. doi:10.1038/465158a, page 158 [thanks to Joe Daleo for alterting us to this]

which perpetuates the myth that the surface temperature data sets are independent from each other.

The authors know better but have decided to mislead the Editors and readers of Nature.

They write

“In the late twentieth century scientists were faced with a very basic question: is global climate changing? They stepped up to that challenge by establishing three independent data sets of monthly global average temperatures. Those data sets, despite using different source data and methods of analysis, all agree that the world has warmed by about 0.75 °C since the start of the twentieth century (specifically, the three estimates are 0.80, 0.74 and 0.78 °C from 1901–2009).”

This is deliberately erroneous as one of the authors of this article (Peter Thorne) is an author of a CCSP report with a different conclusion. With just limited exceptions, the surface temperature data sets do not use different sources of data and are, therefore, not independent.

As I wrote in one of my posts

An Erroneous Statement Made By Phil Jones To The Media On The Independence Of The Global Surface Temperature Trend Analyses Of CRU, GISS And NCDC

In the report “Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences Final Report, Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.1” [a report in which Peter Thorne is one of the authors] on page 32 it is written [text from the CCSP report is in italics]

“The global surface air temperature data sets used in this report are to a large extent based on data readily exchanged internationally, e.g., through CLIMAT reports and the WMO publication Monthly Climatic Data for the World. Commercial and other considerations prevent a fuller exchange, though the United States may be better represented than many other areas. In this report, we present three global surface climate records, created from available data by NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies [GISS], NOAA National Climatic Data Center [NCDC], and the cooperative project of the U.K. Hadley Centre and the Climate Research Unit [CRU]of the University of East Anglia (HadCRUT2v).”

These three analyses are led by Tom Karl (NCDC), Jim Hansen (GISS) and Phil Jones (CRU).

The differences between the three global surface temperatures that occur are a result of the analysis methodology as used by each of the three groups. They are not “completely independent”. This is further explained on page 48 of the CCSP report where it is written with respect to the surface temperature data (as well as the other temperature data sets) that

“The data sets are distinguished from one another by differences in the details of their construction.”

On page 50 it is written

“Currently, there are three main groups creating global analyses of surface temperature (see Table 3.1), differing in the choice of available data that are utilized as well as the manner in which these data are synthesized.”

and

“Since the three chosen data sets utilize many of the same raw observations, there is a degree of interdependence.”

The chapter then states on page 51 that

“While there are fundamental differences in the methodology used to create the surface data sets, the differing techniques with the same data produce almost the same results (Vose et al., 2005a). The small differences in deductions about climate change derived from the surface data sets are likely to be due mostly to differences in construction methodology and global averaging procedures.”

and thus, to no surprise, it is concluded that

“Examination of the three global surface temperature anomaly time series (TS) from 1958 to the present shown in Figure 3.1 reveals that the three time series have a very high level of agreement.”

Moreover, as we reported in our paper

Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229.

“The raw surface temperature data from which all of the different global surface temperature trend analyses are derived are essentially the same. The best estimate that has been reported is that 90–95% of the raw data in each of the analyses is the same (P. Jones, personal communication, 2003).”

Peter Stott and Peter Thorne have deliberately misled the readership of Nature in order to give the impression that three data analyses corroborate their analyzed trends, while in reality the three surface temperature data sets are closely related.

Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.