wattsupwiththat.com
Open in
urlscan Pro
199.16.172.80
Public Scan
Submitted URL: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/14/mcintyre-and-mckitrick-to-receive-award/
Effective URL: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/14/mcintyre-and-mckitrick-to-receive-award/
Submission: On December 22 via api from AU — Scanned from AU
Effective URL: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/14/mcintyre-and-mckitrick-to-receive-award/
Submission: On December 22 via api from AU — Scanned from AU
Form analysis 4 forms found in the DOM
GET https://wattsupwiththat.com/
<form action="https://wattsupwiththat.com/" method="get" class="search-form">
<label class="assistive-text"> Search </label>
<div class="input-group">
<input type="search" value="" placeholder="Search" class="form-control s" name="s">
<div class="input-group-prepend">
<button class="btn btn-theme">Search</button>
</div>
</div>
</form>POST #
<form action="#" method="post" accept-charset="utf-8" id="subscribe-blog-blog_subscription-2" data-blog="146051786" data-post_access_level="everybody">
<div id="subscribe-text">
<p>You are following WUWT via email</p>
</div>
<p id="subscribe-email">
<label id="jetpack-subscribe-label" class="screen-reader-text" for="subscribe-field-blog_subscription-2"> Email Address </label>
<input type="email" name="email" required="required" value="" id="subscribe-field-blog_subscription-2" placeholder="Email Address">
</p>
<p id="subscribe-submit">
<input type="hidden" name="action" value="subscribe">
<input type="hidden" name="source" value="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/14/mcintyre-and-mckitrick-to-receive-award/">
<input type="hidden" name="sub-type" value="widget">
<input type="hidden" name="redirect_fragment" value="subscribe-blog-blog_subscription-2">
<input type="hidden" id="_wpnonce" name="_wpnonce" value="5e9c76c110"><input type="hidden" name="_wp_http_referer" value="/2010/06/14/mcintyre-and-mckitrick-to-receive-award/"> <button type="submit" class="wp-block-button__link"
name="jetpack_subscriptions_widget"> Follow </button>
</p>
</form>GET https://wattsupwiththat.com
<form action="https://wattsupwiththat.com" method="get"><label class="screen-reader-text" for="cat">Categories</label><select name="cat" id="cat" class="postform">
<option value="-1">Select Category</option>
<option class="level-0" value="2">2017 Solar Eclipse</option>
<option class="level-0" value="3">350.org connect the dots</option>
<option class="level-0" value="4">97% consensus</option>
<option class="level-0" value="5">99% certainty</option>
<option class="level-0" value="9959">Academic Freedom</option>
<option class="level-0" value="6">Adjustments/Corrections</option>
<option class="level-0" value="7">Aerosols</option>
<option class="level-0" value="8">Agriculture</option>
<option class="level-0" value="9">AGU</option>
<option class="level-0" value="10">AGU 2013</option>
<option class="level-0" value="11">AGU 2014</option>
<option class="level-0" value="12">AGU 2015</option>
<option class="level-0" value="9931">AGU 2019</option>
<option class="level-0" value="13">AGU16</option>
<option class="level-0" value="14">Air pollution</option>
<option class="level-0" value="15">Al Gore</option>
<option class="level-0" value="16">Alarmism</option>
<option class="level-0" value="17">Albedo</option>
<option class="level-0" value="18">AMO</option>
<option class="level-0" value="19">Announcements</option>
<option class="level-0" value="20">Antarctic</option>
<option class="level-0" value="11488">Antarctic Ice Cores</option>
<option class="level-0" value="12529">Antarctic Ice Mass</option>
<option class="level-0" value="21">Anthropocene</option>
<option class="level-0" value="22">Anthropogenic Ocean Warming</option>
<option class="level-0" value="23">Arctic</option>
<option class="level-0" value="24">ARGO data</option>
<option class="level-0" value="25">Astronomy</option>
<option class="level-0" value="26">Atmospheric physics</option>
<option class="level-0" value="27">Attribution</option>
<option class="level-0" value="28">Bad science</option>
<option class="level-0" value="29">Bad science journalism</option>
<option class="level-0" value="30">Bengtsson Climate McCarthyism scandal</option>
<option class="level-0" value="31">Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature</option>
<option class="level-0" value="15408">Bias</option>
<option class="level-0" value="8924">Biodiversity</option>
<option class="level-0" value="32">biofuels</option>
<option class="level-0" value="33">Biomass</option>
<option class="level-0" value="34">Book Review</option>
<option class="level-0" value="35">Cancun Climate Conference</option>
<option class="level-0" value="36">Cap-and-trade</option>
<option class="level-0" value="37">Carbon credits</option>
<option class="level-0" value="38">Carbon dioxide</option>
<option class="level-0" value="11995">Carbon Fail</option>
<option class="level-0" value="39">Carbon footprint</option>
<option class="level-0" value="40">Carbon sequestration</option>
<option class="level-0" value="41">Carbon soot</option>
<option class="level-0" value="42">carbon tax</option>
<option class="level-0" value="43">Celebrities on AGW</option>
<option class="level-0" value="44">censorship</option>
<option class="level-0" value="279">CFC’s</option>
<option class="level-0" value="45">Chaos and Climate</option>
<option class="level-0" value="46">Citizen science</option>
<option class="level-0" value="9065">Climate Attribution</option>
<option class="level-0" value="47">Climate cash</option>
<option class="level-0" value="8778">Climate Change Debate</option>
<option class="level-0" value="48">Climate Communications</option>
<option class="level-0" value="49">Climate Craziness of the Week</option>
<option class="level-0" value="50">Climate data</option>
<option class="level-0" value="14118">Climate Debate</option>
<option class="level-0" value="9530">Climate Delusion</option>
<option class="level-0" value="51">Climate Economics</option>
<option class="level-0" value="52">Climate FAIL</option>
<option class="level-0" value="53">Climate Hypocrisy</option>
<option class="level-0" value="8761">Climate Lawsuits</option>
<option class="level-0" value="54">Climate Models</option>
<option class="level-0" value="55">Climate Myths</option>
<option class="level-0" value="56">Climate News</option>
<option class="level-0" value="57">Climate News Roundup</option>
<option class="level-0" value="9147">Climate Politics</option>
<option class="level-0" value="9772">Climate Propaganda</option>
<option class="level-0" value="58">Climate reconciliation</option>
<option class="level-0" value="59">Climate Reference Network</option>
<option class="level-0" value="60">climate refugees</option>
<option class="level-0" value="9026">Climate Science</option>
<option class="level-0" value="61">Climate sensitivity</option>
<option class="level-0" value="62">Climate ugliness</option>
<option class="level-0" value="65">Climate_change</option>
<option class="level-0" value="63">Climategate</option>
<option class="level-0" value="64">Climategate 3.0</option>
<option class="level-0" value="14097">ClimateTV</option>
<option class="level-0" value="66">Clouds</option>
<option class="level-0" value="11859">CO2</option>
<option class="level-0" value="280">Coal</option>
<option class="level-0" value="281">Cold wave</option>
<option class="level-0" value="11982">Commentary</option>
<option class="level-0" value="11983">Commentary</option>
<option class="level-0" value="8762">Common sense</option>
<option class="level-0" value="67">Consensus</option>
<option class="level-0" value="68">COP conferences</option>
<option class="level-0" value="69">Copenhagen Climate Conference</option>
<option class="level-0" value="70">Copygate</option>
<option class="level-0" value="71">coral reefs</option>
<option class="level-0" value="10207">Coronavirus</option>
<option class="level-0" value="72">Cosmic rays</option>
<option class="level-0" value="11133">Covid News</option>
<option class="level-0" value="73">Cowtan & Way</option>
<option class="level-0" value="74">Curious things</option>
<option class="level-0" value="75">Current News</option>
<option class="level-0" value="76">Desertification</option>
<option class="level-0" value="77">Disaster</option>
<option class="level-0" value="282">disinvitation</option>
<option class="level-0" value="13705">Dr. Patrick Michaels</option>
<option class="level-0" value="78">Drought</option>
<option class="level-0" value="79">Durban Climate Conference</option>
<option class="level-0" value="283">dust storms</option>
<option class="level-0" value="80">Earth</option>
<option class="level-0" value="81">Earthquakes</option>
<option class="level-0" value="13524">Economics of Climate Change</option>
<option class="level-0" value="82">Economy-health</option>
<option class="level-0" value="11356">Ecoterrorism</option>
<option class="level-0" value="83">Education</option>
<option class="level-0" value="84">Educational opportunity</option>
<option class="level-0" value="85">El Nino Basics</option>
<option class="level-0" value="10955">Electric Vehicles</option>
<option class="level-0" value="86">Emergence</option>
<option class="level-0" value="87">Emergent Climate Phenomena</option>
<option class="level-0" value="9200">Emissions</option>
<option class="level-0" value="9841">End Of Snow</option>
<option class="level-0" value="8897">Endangered Species</option>
<option class="level-0" value="88">Energy</option>
<option class="level-0" value="9558">Energy Fail</option>
<option class="level-0" value="89">ENSO</option>
<option class="level-0" value="90">Environment</option>
<option class="level-0" value="91">EPA</option>
<option class="level-0" value="92">erosion</option>
<option class="level-0" value="11611">Everything Climate</option>
<option class="level-0" value="13769">EVs</option>
<option class="level-0" value="93">Experiments</option>
<option class="level-0" value="284">Extinction</option>
<option class="level-0" value="94">extreme weather</option>
<option class="level-0" value="95">Fake News</option>
<option class="level-0" value="96">Fakegate</option>
<option class="level-0" value="97">feedbacks</option>
<option class="level-0" value="12762">Finance</option>
<option class="level-0" value="285">flooding</option>
<option class="level-0" value="286">fog</option>
<option class="level-0" value="98">FOI</option>
<option class="level-0" value="99">Forecasting</option>
<option class="level-0" value="100">Forests</option>
<option class="level-0" value="9537">Fossil Fuel Divestment Fools</option>
<option class="level-0" value="101">Fracking</option>
<option class="level-0" value="102">Freeman Dyson</option>
<option class="level-0" value="103">FUG</option>
<option class="level-0" value="104">Fun_stuff</option>
<option class="level-0" value="105">Fusion power</option>
<option class="level-0" value="106">Gavin Schmidt</option>
<option class="level-0" value="107">Geoengineering</option>
<option class="level-0" value="9604">Geology Lessons</option>
<option class="level-0" value="108">geothermal energy</option>
<option class="level-0" value="109">Gergis et al</option>
<option class="level-0" value="287">GHCN</option>
<option class="level-0" value="110">GISS</option>
<option class="level-0" value="111">Glaciers</option>
<option class="level-0" value="112">Global cooling</option>
<option class="level-0" value="113">Global Greening</option>
<option class="level-0" value="114">Global Temperature Update</option>
<option class="level-0" value="115">Global warming</option>
<option class="level-0" value="8896">Global Warming in Perspective</option>
<option class="level-0" value="116">Global Warming Optimism</option>
<option class="level-0" value="117">GLOC</option>
<option class="level-0" value="11009">Good News</option>
<option class="level-0" value="118">Gore-a-thon 2011</option>
<option class="level-0" value="119">Gore-a-thon 2012</option>
<option class="level-0" value="120">Gorefest11</option>
<option class="level-0" value="121">Government funding of science</option>
<option class="level-0" value="122">Government idiocy</option>
<option class="level-0" value="8756">Graph of the Week</option>
<option class="level-0" value="123">Gravity</option>
<option class="level-0" value="124">Green Blob</option>
<option class="level-0" value="125">Green Mafia</option>
<option class="level-0" value="9130">Green New Deal</option>
<option class="level-0" value="126">Green tech</option>
<option class="level-0" value="12467">Greenhouse Effect</option>
<option class="level-0" value="127">Greenland ice sheet</option>
<option class="level-0" value="8814">HADCRUT4</option>
<option class="level-0" value="288">hail</option>
<option class="level-0" value="128">Hausfather et al 2017</option>
<option class="level-0" value="289">heat wave</option>
<option class="level-0" value="129">Hiatus in Global Warming</option>
<option class="level-0" value="130">History</option>
<option class="level-0" value="131">Hits and Misses</option>
<option class="level-0" value="14460">Holocene</option>
<option class="level-0" value="132">How Climate Works</option>
<option class="level-0" value="133">Humor</option>
<option class="level-0" value="134">humour</option>
<option class="level-0" value="290">hurricanes</option>
<option class="level-0" value="13529">Hurricanes</option>
<option class="level-0" value="135">hydroclimatology</option>
<option class="level-0" value="136">Hydropower</option>
<option class="level-0" value="137">Ice Ages</option>
<option class="level-0" value="12058">Intermittent Wind and Solar</option>
<option class="level-0" value="138">IPCC</option>
<option class="level-0" value="139">IPCC AR5 leak</option>
<option class="level-0" value="140">IPCC AR5 Report</option>
<option class="level-0" value="10271">IPCC AR6</option>
<option class="level-0" value="141">Ira</option>
<option class="level-0" value="10252">Irony</option>
<option class="level-0" value="9067">It’s Worse Than We Thought!</option>
<option class="level-0" value="142">James Hansen</option>
<option class="level-0" value="143">John Cook</option>
<option class="level-0" value="11442">Journalism</option>
<option class="level-0" value="144">junk science</option>
<option class="level-0" value="145">Karl et al. 2015</option>
<option class="level-0" value="8899">Katowice Conference</option>
<option class="level-0" value="146">Land Surface Air Temperature Data</option>
<option class="level-0" value="147">Land use land cover change</option>
<option class="level-0" value="148">Landslides</option>
<option class="level-0" value="149">Letters To The Editor</option>
<option class="level-0" value="150">Lewgate</option>
<option class="level-0" value="151">Lewis and Crok</option>
<option class="level-0" value="291">lightning</option>
<option class="level-0" value="152">Little Ice Age</option>
<option class="level-0" value="153">Local_issues</option>
<option class="level-0" value="154">Lower Troposphere Temperature</option>
<option class="level-0" value="155">Lukewarmerism</option>
<option class="level-0" value="15049">Lunar tides and climate</option>
<option class="level-0" value="12148">Malthusian Myths</option>
<option class="level-0" value="156">Marcott et al proxy paper</option>
<option class="level-0" value="157">Mass Extinctions</option>
<option class="level-0" value="158">measurement</option>
<option class="level-0" value="159">media</option>
<option class="level-0" value="160">MedievalWarmPeriod</option>
<option class="level-0" value="13820">Meridional Transport</option>
<option class="level-0" value="161">Methane</option>
<option class="level-0" value="162">MetOffice</option>
<option class="level-0" value="163">Michael E. Mann</option>
<option class="level-0" value="9574">Mining</option>
<option class="level-0" value="9003">MJO</option>
<option class="level-0" value="164">Modeling</option>
<option class="level-0" value="292">modification</option>
<option class="level-0" value="13715">Monarchs</option>
<option class="level-0" value="293">monsoons</option>
<option class="level-0" value="165">More On Series</option>
<option class="level-0" value="166">NASA</option>
<option class="level-0" value="167">NASA GISS</option>
<option class="level-0" value="168">National Climate Assessment Report</option>
<option class="level-0" value="169">Natural CO2 sources</option>
<option class="level-0" value="170">natural gas</option>
<option class="level-0" value="171">Natural Warming</option>
<option class="level-0" value="172">NCADAC</option>
<option class="level-0" value="294">NCDC</option>
<option class="level-0" value="173">NCEI</option>
<option class="level-0" value="13118">Net-Zero</option>
<option class="level-0" value="13119">Net-Zero</option>
<option class="level-0" value="174">News</option>
<option class="level-0" value="175">Newsbytes</option>
<option class="level-0" value="176">NGOs</option>
<option class="level-0" value="177">NOAA</option>
<option class="level-0" value="178">NOAA 2 year FOIA documents</option>
<option class="level-0" value="179">NOAA ERSST.v4 Pauses Buster</option>
<option class="level-0" value="180">Noble Cause Corruption</option>
<option class="level-0" value="181">nuclear power</option>
<option class="level-0" value="13754">Numbers</option>
<option class="level-0" value="182">Obama Climate Plan</option>
<option class="level-0" value="183">Obamas War on Energy</option>
<option class="level-0" value="12087">Obituary</option>
<option class="level-0" value="184">Obvious science</option>
<option class="level-0" value="185">Ocean acidification</option>
<option class="level-0" value="186">Ocean Heat Content</option>
<option class="level-0" value="187">Ocean Temperatures</option>
<option class="level-0" value="188">Oceans</option>
<option class="level-0" value="9170">Oil and Gas</option>
<option class="level-0" value="189">Open Thread</option>
<option class="level-0" value="190">Opinion</option>
<option class="level-0" value="191">Optical phenonmena</option>
<option class="level-0" value="192">Ozone</option>
<option class="level-0" value="193">Paleoclimatology</option>
<option class="level-0" value="194">Papal Climate Encyclical</option>
<option class="level-0" value="195">Paris Climate Accord</option>
<option class="level-0" value="196">PDO</option>
<option class="level-0" value="197">Peer review</option>
<option class="level-0" value="198">PEOPLE WILL DIE!</option>
<option class="level-0" value="15687">Permafrost</option>
<option class="level-0" value="199">Personal note</option>
<option class="level-0" value="200">petroleum</option>
<option class="level-0" value="201">Plankton and other critters</option>
<option class="level-0" value="13489">Plastic – At Sea</option>
<option class="level-0" value="9328">Podcasts</option>
<option class="level-0" value="9092">Polar Amplification</option>
<option class="level-0" value="9290">Polar Bears</option>
<option class="level-0" value="295">Polar Vortex</option>
<option class="level-0" value="202">Polarbeargate</option>
<option class="level-0" value="203">Politics</option>
<option class="level-0" value="11086">Politics and climate change</option>
<option class="level-0" value="13312">Polls</option>
<option class="level-0" value="11955">Population</option>
<option class="level-0" value="204">Positive effects of CO2</option>
<option class="level-0" value="205">Post-normal science</option>
<option class="level-0" value="206">Presentations</option>
<option class="level-0" value="207">Proxies</option>
<option class="level-0" value="208">Puzzling things</option>
<option class="level-0" value="210">Quote of The Month</option>
<option class="level-0" value="211">Quote of the Week</option>
<option class="level-0" value="212">Radiation</option>
<option class="level-0" value="213">Radiative Imbalance</option>
<option class="level-0" value="296">Rainfall</option>
<option class="level-0" value="214">RCP 8.5 Science Fiction</option>
<option class="level-0" value="297">records</option>
<option class="level-0" value="9616">Recycling</option>
<option class="level-0" value="215">Reference Pages</option>
<option class="level-0" value="216">Regulation</option>
<option class="level-0" value="217">Renewable energy</option>
<option class="level-0" value="298">reproducibility</option>
<option class="level-0" value="218">RICO20</option>
<option class="level-0" value="219">Ridiculae</option>
<option class="level-0" value="220">Rio+20</option>
<option class="level-0" value="221">Russia</option>
<option class="level-0" value="222">Salinity</option>
<option class="level-0" value="13263">Satellite Temperature Records</option>
<option class="level-0" value="223">Satire</option>
<option class="level-0" value="224">Science</option>
<option class="level-0" value="11829">Science Journalism</option>
<option class="level-0" value="11830">Science Journlism</option>
<option class="level-0" value="225">Sea</option>
<option class="level-0" value="226">Sea ice</option>
<option class="level-0" value="227">Sea Ice News</option>
<option class="level-0" value="228">Sea level</option>
<option class="level-0" value="229">Sea Surface Temperature</option>
<option class="level-0" value="299">Snow</option>
<option class="level-0" value="300">snowfall</option>
<option class="level-0" value="230">social cost of carbon</option>
<option class="level-0" value="231">Solar</option>
<option class="level-0" value="232">solar flare</option>
<option class="level-0" value="233">solar power</option>
<option class="level-0" value="14984">solar/climate connection</option>
<option class="level-0" value="234">Southern Annular Mode</option>
<option class="level-0" value="235">Space</option>
<option class="level-0" value="236">Spaceweather</option>
<option class="level-0" value="237">Specific Humidity</option>
<option class="level-0" value="238">Spencer-Braswell and Dessler</option>
<option class="level-0" value="9943">St. Greta</option>
<option class="level-0" value="239">statistics</option>
<option class="level-0" value="240">Stephan Lewandowsky</option>
<option class="level-0" value="241">Stern Review</option>
<option class="level-0" value="12366">Strategic Minerals</option>
<option class="level-0" value="242">Stratospheric water vapor</option>
<option class="level-0" value="243">Surfacestations paper</option>
<option class="level-0" value="244">Surveys</option>
<option class="level-0" value="245">Sustainability</option>
<option class="level-0" value="246">Tabloid Climatology</option>
<option class="level-0" value="247">TAO/TRITON Buoys</option>
<option class="level-0" value="248">Technology</option>
<option class="level-0" value="249">Temperature</option>
<option class="level-0" value="10228">Temperature Reconstructions</option>
<option class="level-0" value="9867">Tesla</option>
<option class="level-0" value="250">The “Clitanic” aka Spirit of Mawson</option>
<option class="level-0" value="13326">The Grid</option>
<option class="level-0" value="251">The Rat-hole problem</option>
<option class="level-0" value="252">The Skeptic’s Case</option>
<option class="level-0" value="253">The Weather Channel</option>
<option class="level-0" value="254">The WUWT Hot Sheet</option>
<option class="level-0" value="255">The Yamal Deception</option>
<option class="level-0" value="256">thorium power</option>
<option class="level-0" value="257">Throwback Thursday Predictions</option>
<option class="level-0" value="301">thunderstorms</option>
<option class="level-0" value="15688">Tipping Points</option>
<option class="level-0" value="302">tornadoes</option>
<option class="level-0" value="14548">Total Precipitable Water</option>
<option class="level-0" value="9341">Transportation</option>
<option class="level-0" value="258">Trenberth’s missing heats</option>
<option class="level-0" value="13789">Trends</option>
<option class="level-0" value="259">Tropical Hot spot</option>
<option class="level-0" value="260">Tropics</option>
<option class="level-0" value="261">Tsunami</option>
<option class="level-0" value="262">UHI</option>
<option class="level-0" value="263">UKMO HADCRUT4</option>
<option class="level-0" value="1">Uncategorized</option>
<option class="level-0" value="264">Uncertainty</option>
<option class="level-0" value="265">United Nations</option>
<option class="level-0" value="303">USCRN</option>
<option class="level-0" value="266">USGS</option>
<option class="level-0" value="11064">USHCN & GHCN</option>
<option class="level-0" value="267">Volcanoes</option>
<option class="level-0" value="268">Vortex</option>
<option class="level-0" value="269">Vulcanism</option>
<option class="level-0" value="270">Waste heat</option>
<option class="level-0" value="271">Watts et al 2012</option>
<option class="level-0" value="272">Weather</option>
<option class="level-0" value="12159">Weather Attribution</option>
<option class="level-0" value="273">Weather_stations</option>
<option class="level-0" value="274">Wiki Wars</option>
<option class="level-0" value="275">Wildfires</option>
<option class="level-0" value="276">Willis Autobiography</option>
<option class="level-0" value="277">wind power</option>
<option class="level-0" value="278">WUWT-TV</option>
</select>
</form>POST
<form method="post">
<input type="submit" value="Close and accept" class="accept">
</form>Text Content
Skip to content
* Friday, December 22, 2023
WATTS UP WITH THAT?
The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change
Search
Search
* About
* Awards
* Contact
* Compose story
* FAQs
* My Blog Spawn
* Policy
* Privacy Policy
* Publications and Projects
* Test
* Climate TV
* Books
* Everything Climate
* Claimed Dangers
* Increase in U.S. Wildfires Due to Climate Change
* Great Lakes Water Levels are falling due to Climate Change
* Climate Change vs. Crop Production
* Coral Reefs are Dying Because of Climate Change
* Climate Change is Lowering Water Levels at Lake Tahoe
* Coal Pollution Can Be Seen Pouring From Power Plant Smokestacks
* Oceans, Sea Level, and Ice
* Antarctic Ice Melt
* Greenland Ice Loss Will Cause Dangerous Sea Level Rise
* Ocean Acidification
* Sea Level Rise is Accelerating Dramatically
* Earth’s Temperature
* The Global Temperature Record Says We Are in a ‘Climate Emergency’
* Unprecedented Heat Wave in Pacific Northwest was Driven by Climate Change
* U.S. Heat Waves are Getting Worse
* We Need to Limit Global Warming to 1.5 Degrees C°
* U.S. Temperatures are Rising Dramatically
* Global Warming is Causing Cold Spells
* Urban Heat Islands Do Not Exaggerate Global Warming
* We are in the ‘Hottest Ever’ Period Due to Climate Change
* Measurement, Emissions & Climate Models
* Climate Sensitivity
* Instrumental Temperature Records Demonstrate Man-Made Global Warming
* The 130-Degree F Reading in Death Valley Is A World Record
* Is The US surface Temperature Record a Reliable Indicator of Warming?
* Climate Change is Causing Accelerated 21st Century Surface Warming
* Measuring the Earth’s Global Average Temperature is a Scientific and
Objective Process
* El Niño and Climate Change
* Climate Models have Accurately Predicted 30 Years of Warming
* A Climate Tipping Point Will Happen at 1.5°C of Warming
* Weather
* Climate Change Will Increase the Number and Severity of Tornadoes
* Climate Change is Increasing the Strength and Frequency of Hurricanes
* Climate Change is Causing More Floods
* Droughts are Increasing Due to Climate Change
* Reference Pages
* Climate Sensitivity
* Atmosphere Page
* CO2 Page
* Atmospheric Oscillation Page
* Climatic Phenomena
* ENSO Page
* ENSO Forecast Page
* Polar Vortex Page
* Northern Polar Vortex Page
* Southern Polar Vortex Page
* Climategate
* “Extreme Weather” Page
* Tornado Page
* Tropical Cyclone Page
* Geomagnetism Page
* Global Temperature – Climate
* Global Climate Page
* Global Temperature Page
* Glossary
* Ocean Page
* Oceanic Oscillation Page
* Paleoclimate Page
* Sea Ice Page
* Beaufort Sea Ice Page
* Great Lakes Ice Page
* Research
* Potential Climatic Variables Page
* The Spencer-Braswell & Dessler papers
* Solar Page
* US Weather – Climate
* US Climate Page
* US Weather Page
* Failed Prediction Timeline
* Submit Story
* Send News Tip
* Home
* 2010
* June
* 14
* McIntyre and McKitrick to receive award
Climate News Uncategorized
MCINTYRE AND MCKITRICK TO RECEIVE AWARD
14 years ago
Anthony Watts
Thursday night, Steve and Ross will be presented with the Julian Simon Memorial
Award at CEI’s annual dinner. The dinner will be held on Thursday, June 17,
2010, at the Hyatt Regency Washington on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.
Let me offer my sincere congratulations to Steve and Ross for their hard work
and well deserved award.
There is a by invitation only congressional briefing from noon to 1:30PM that
same day. People with interest may be able to attend by contacting Myron Ebell
at the email address given below.
Two important figures at the heart of the ClimateGate e-mails, Canadians Stephen
McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, will provide key information on the remarkable
revelations in thousands of e-mails and files that were leaked from the
University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in November last year.
They will show examples from the e-mails and related sources that reveal a core
group of scientists manipulating the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) process in order to keep policymakers in the dark about major
uncertainties and problems in climate science. They will also show how the
inquiries set up in the aftermath of ClimateGate have been rigged and
misdirected so as to whitewash the scandal and protect the climate establishment
from genuine external scrutiny.
Much of ClimateGate involves research initially called into doubt by the
analysis of Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. The scientists involved in the
scandal saw McIntyre and McKitrick as major threats to global warming orthodoxy
and to their own credibility. Consequently, they are mentioned more than 150
times in the ClimateGate e-mails.
McIntyre and McKitrick are most famous for demolishing the infamous “hockey
stick”—the graph promoted by the IPCC as proof that global temperatures had been
stable for nine hundred years until increasing rapidly in the twentieth
century. Their debunking of the hockey stick was confirmed in 2006 by a panel
of professionals statisticians convened by the House Energy and Commerce
Committee. Their exploits have been recounted in a new book by A. W. Montford,
The Hockey Stick Illusion, which reads like a detective thriller.
Before laws regulating energy use are enacted that could well cost trillions of
dollars, it is crucial to understand the extent to which the alleged scientific
consensus supporting global warming alarmism has been discredited by ClimateGate
and related scandals. Join us for a discussion featuring two of the people at
the center of the storm.
Stephen McIntyre is the editor and founder of Climate Audit, one of the web’s
most popular and compelling climate science blogs as well as one of the best
sources for expert analysis of the continuing ClimateGate and related scandals.
Before becoming interested in the scientific debate over global warming, Mr.
McIntyre worked for thirty years in a variety of roles in the minerals
exploration business in Canada, including as President of Northwest Exploration
Co. Ltd. He holds a B. A. in mathematics from the University of Toronto and
earned another degree in philosophy, politics, and economics from Oxford
University. Since the hockey stick scandal, Mr. McIntyre has continued to use
his statistical expertise to analyze temperature data and has uncovered a number
of other significant mistakes in official claims, which have proved highly
embarrassing to U. S. government agencies and several leading climate
scientists.
Ross McKitrick is Professor of Economics at the University of Guelph in Ontario,
Canada and a Senior Fellow of the Fraser Institute. He holds a Ph.D. from the
University of British Columbia. Professor McKitrick has published a wide range
of internationally-recognized studies on the economic analysis of pollution
policy, economic growth and air pollution trends, the health effects of air
pollution, statistical methods in climatology, the measurement of global
warming, and other topics. His 2003 co-authored book, Taken By Storm: The
Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming, won the Donner Prize
for the best book on Canadian public policy. His newest book, Economic Analysis
of Environmental Policy, will be published later this year. Professor
McKitrick’s willingness to question conventional thinking on environmental
issues and global warming dogma has had an impact around the world. He has made
over 100 invited academic presentations in Canada, the U.S., and Europe, and has
testified before the U. S. Congress and the Canadian Parliament.
Myron Ebell
Director, Energy and Global Warming Policy
Competitive Enterprise Institute
1899 L Street, N. W., Twelfth Floor
Washington, D. C., 20036, USA
E-mail: mebell@cei.org
0 0 votes
Article Rating
SHARE THIS:
* Print
* Email
* Facebook
* Twitter
* GETTR
* Telegram
*
LIKE THIS:
Like Loading...
RELATED
VIDEO FROM ICCC14 ONLINE AND LIVE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7JGaasXBLw Breakfast Keynote – 8:00am – 9:30am
PTA scientific keynote by Patrick Michaels, Ph.D., and a panel discussion on
energy policy in Europe with Wolfgang Müller and Holger Thuss, Ph.D., of the
European Institute for Climate and Energy will be featured in this plenary
session. Lunch Keynote – 1:45pm –…
October 16, 2021
In "Climate News"
AMERICA FIRST ENERGY CONFERENCE ANNOUNCED
Press release: The America First Energy Conference examining the scientific,
economic, and political foundations of the America First Energy Plan will be
gathering in Houston, Texas at the J.W. Marriott Hotel on Thursday, November 9,
2017. This conference will bring together some of the country’s most prominent
energy policy experts including: Myron…
October 5, 2017
In "Announcements"
CANADA FINDS CLIMATE SANITY
Back from the brink A sudden outbreak of sanity seems to have taken hold Canada.
Firstly the idea of a carbon tax appears to have been killed off for good:
Conservatives kill carbon tax Conservatives have kiboshed a carbon tax,
Environment Minister Peter Kent confirmed Thursday. "It's off the table," he…
May 19, 2011
In "Cap-and-trade"
POST NAVIGATION
The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider
Bizzarothink in Goreville
129 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Stephen Brown
June 14, 2010 2:39 pm
Recognition at last!
Very well done, gentlemen, we salute you both.
0
K
June 14, 2010 2:46 pm
It should be the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Maybe sometime after 2012
perhaps.
0
James P
June 14, 2010 2:52 pm
It is sobering to consider where we might be without M&M’s contributions. Hell
and handcarts come to mind…
0
John Campbell
June 14, 2010 2:54 pm
Well done, and many congrataulations. Fully deserved.
0
Seth Cuttlefish
June 14, 2010 2:57 pm
CEI is hardly scientific on the subject of global warming. They were the ones
that run the adds saying the CO2 was harmless: “it’s essential to life. We
breathe it out. Plants breathe it in… They call it pollution. We call it life.”
McIntyre and McKitrick would do best by refusing the award to distance
themselves from an organisation that is so removed from science that they
pretend that they have never heard of the greenhouse effect.
0
Jeff M
June 14, 2010 2:58 pm
Way to go! Congratulations!!!
0
Alex the skeptic
June 14, 2010 2:59 pm
Gore and his cabal should be destituted, their (ig)Nobel prize for peace taken
away and handed over to these two great guys who have shown the world what the
truth is. But politicians are of course in cahoots with Gore and his cabal of a
handful of money seeking ‘scientists’ and until the current bunch of politcians
get booted out or die a natural politcal death, the situation will not change.
Galileo persisted and he won the day and he is in the good history books for
ever. The two Macs shall remain known for ever too, for their search of the
truth while Mann et al will be buried in unnamed historical tombs and forgotten.
But the lesson will not be forgotten: That a few money-guzzling scientists,
abetted by the msm and left-wing politicians could take the whole world for such
a long expensive ride.
0
Dr. Robert
June 14, 2010 3:01 pm
Congratulations! It should be the Nobel!
0
latitude
June 14, 2010 3:07 pm
“”Seth Cuttlefish says:””
I’m sure they will take your suggestion under consideration Seth.
CONGRATULATIONS YOU GUYS!
0
Nick Luke
June 14, 2010 3:18 pm
Amazing!! Well done and very well deserved.
Nick Luke
0
dbleader61
June 14, 2010 3:19 pm
Definitely makes one proud to be a Canadian….
0
Rob R
June 14, 2010 3:20 pm
Well done indeed.
By the way it looks like another spotless day on the solar front.
0
TroubleWithTribbles
June 14, 2010 3:21 pm
McIntyre for Governor General.
0
John A
June 14, 2010 3:22 pm
So Steve McIntyre is the “founder” of Climate Audit? What about… Oh never mind.
He deserves it all anyway.
In the “Hockey Stick Illusion” I was mentioned once as “a supporter”. That’s the
price of anonymity, I suppose….
0
rbateman
June 14, 2010 3:24 pm
Absolutely smashing job the both of them performed.
The 21st Century equivalent of Woodward and Bernstein.
0
Jimbo
June 14, 2010 3:24 pm
> Seth Cuttlefish says:
> June 14, 2010 at 2:57 pm
> CEI is hardly scientific on the subject of global warming. They were the ones
> that run the adds saying the CO2 was harmless: “it’s essential to life. We
> breathe it out. Plants breathe it in… They call it pollution. We call it
> life.”
What is untrue about any of the above which you have quoted?
> “….an organisation that is so removed from science that they pretend that they
> have never heard of the greenhouse effect.”
Have they, show me where? In years to come you will be highly troubled by the
sham you let yourself into. You’ve been taken for a ride sir.
0
ZT
June 14, 2010 3:28 pm
Two true scientists, congratulations.
0
Gail Combs
June 14, 2010 3:34 pm
Many thanks. All of us owe you a debt of gratitude for uncovering the
statistical snafus and pursuing them. You pulled at a string and now the whole
ball is unraveling.
0
Breckite
June 14, 2010 3:40 pm
They deserve a Nobel and Gore et al deserve prison!
0
Leon Brozyna
June 14, 2010 3:46 pm
Congratulations!
Well deserved recognition for undertaking the thankless task of seeking the
truth.
0
Orson
June 14, 2010 3:47 pm
YEEAH!
Finally – for Steve and Ross!
To those how only know Julian Simon as a “Cornucopian” – ie, that technological
fixes will solve all challenges we face – you deserve a corrective. His book
“Population and Development in Poor Countries: Selected Essays” (1999, Princeton
University Press), showed me that his claims such as those in “The Ultiumate
Resource 2” were well founded, well-researched and thus merit acknowledgement,
debate and discussion.
0
Dr A Burns
June 14, 2010 3:50 pm
Nobel nomination anyone ?
0
Ray
June 14, 2010 3:50 pm
dbleader61 says:
June 14, 2010 at 3:19 pm
Yeah, now if we could only get rid of the Green Party of Canada our economy
would really soar…
0
John Whitman
June 14, 2010 3:52 pm
M & M,
Congratulations & hope you continue.
John
0
PaulH
June 14, 2010 3:53 pm
Proud to be a Canadian!
0
Britannic no-see-um
June 14, 2010 4:05 pm
The epic story of their work will become immortalised in the annals of science.
0
Don.W
June 14, 2010 4:23 pm
John A says:
June 14, 2010 at 3:22 pm
So Steve McIntyre is the “founder” of Climate Audit? What about… Oh never mind.
He deserves it all anyway.
LOL! Not to worry John. Many of us from the early days remember your
contributions! Hell I’ll just say it… Odds are if it wasn’t for your efforts
most of us would’nt know about Steve McIntyre and his work.
On behalf of a great many of us let me thank you for your prodding & needling of
Steve and your tireless work on the CA blog. I know I’m not CEI but at least I’m
not BP!…
Best,
Don.w
0
maz2
June 14, 2010 4:24 pm
Prophets are generally unrecognized in their own country.
M&M are to be honoured/awarded in the USA.
A salute and thank-you to Canadians Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick.
Canada salutes Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick.
Bravo.
…-
[Canadians] “McIntyre and McKitrick to receive award”
“Two important figures at the heart of the ClimateGate e-mails, Canadians
Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, will provide key information on the
remarkable revelations in thousands of e-mails and files that were leaked from
the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in November last year.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
…-
“Tories put climate change on G8 agenda after pressure from world leaders
Nobel Peace Prize laureates and environmentalists had joined chorus calling to
put climate change on the table”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-put-climate-change-on-g8-agenda-after-pressure-from-world-leaders/article1603818/
http://www.bluelikeyou.com/2010/06/14/rob-ford-slightly-ahead-nanos/#comment-83682
0
Political Junkie
June 14, 2010 4:38 pm
As a Canadian, I’m delighted to bask in the glory of two countrymen who will be
seen to have changed history – for the better!
0
dearieme
June 14, 2010 4:40 pm
Just more evidence that Canadians are finer, nobler people. And too polite to
say so (well, too polite to say so very often).
0
tommy
June 14, 2010 4:43 pm
@Seth Cuttlefish
“CEI is hardly scientific on the subject of global warming. They were the ones
that run the adds saying the CO2 was harmless: “it’s essential to life. We
breathe it out. Plants breathe it in… They call it pollution. We call it life.”
I dont see why hey should distance themselves from something that is infact
true.
0
JAE
June 14, 2010 4:46 pm
Great! It is high time!
0
RACookPE1978
Editor
June 14, 2010 5:02 pm
Seth Cuttlefish says:
June 14, 2010 at 2:57 pm
CEI is hardly scientific on the subject of global warming. They were the ones
that run the adds saying the CO2 was harmless: “it’s essential to life. We
breathe it out. Plants breathe it in… They call it pollution. We call it life.”
—…—…
M&M: Congratulations. The dinner will be a nice recognition of your courage, but
the testimony in the hearing before hand is the more important.
Seth: As asked above, what is incorrect about the statement you quoted?
Exactly how many billions of people do you want destituted by withholding food,
power, shelter, water, clothing, sewage treatment, and transportation by
restricting energy just so YOU can “feel good” (uselessly) about the
environment?
0
tarpon
June 14, 2010 5:03 pm
M&M — Bravo, job well done …
0
Enneagram
June 14, 2010 5:08 pm
Two Quixotes on pursue of their Dulcinea, the truth. Congratulations!
Nobel men never negotiate their principles.
0
BCGreenBean
June 14, 2010 5:09 pm
Woot! I’m taking this as independent confirmation that not all us Canadians are
certifiably insane. Walk tall gentlemen, walk tall. Congratulations
0
Geoff Sherrington
June 14, 2010 5:10 pm
Leadership by example is an attribute that should give you both immense pride.
0
Richard Henry Lee
June 14, 2010 5:15 pm
Congratulations Mc and Mc on your award. From a simple question about the
provenance of the hockey stick, you have unearthed the tricks which were used to
generate the stick. You have also forced climate scientists to open up their
data to the public and you have inspired countless others to question methods
used in climate science. Thank you!
0
villabolo
June 14, 2010 5:29 pm
Jimbo says:
June 14, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Seth Cuttlefish says:
June 14, 2010 at 2:57 pm
CEI is hardly scientific on the subject of global warming. They were the ones
that run the adds saying the CO2 was harmless: “it’s essential to life. We
breathe it out. Plants breathe it in… They call it pollution. We call it life.”
—————————————————————————————
“What is untrue about any of the above which you have quoted?”
“….an organisation that is so removed from science that they pretend that they
have never heard of the greenhouse effect.”
“Have they, show me where? In years to come you will be highly troubled by the
sham you let yourself into. You’ve been taken for a ride sir.”
—————————————————————————————
RESPONSE:
TOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING IS A BAD THING. Good food is harmless. So why don’t you
eat twice as much?
As far as breathing it in and out by Humans, Animals and Plants, how many of the
preceding are going to do any breathing in the expanded, Sahara style, desert
areas of the Earth?
POLLUTION BY A NATURAL SUBSTANCE? That is relative to the impact it makes. If it
causes trouble then it is rational to call it pollution.
An example. In the late 19th century horse manure was no problem at the farm.
Quite the contrary, it was desirable since it made good fertilizer.
But pedestrians crossing city roads had a different opinion. Stagecoach after
stagecoach would pass by with their horses-did anyone ever think of
diapers?-heeding natures call. It was also a major health danger due to the
large numbers of disease carrying flies it created. People were actually paid to
clean up that pollution.
By the way, horse manure was actually called pollution back then.
As far as being troubled by the “sham” we have supposedly been led to, I have a
prediction to make. As soon as the Arctic ice cap melts, Oil Company shills will
invent a new set of lies and fantasies and expand the emphasis on some old ones.
All of a sudden Natural Warming will be all the craze as opposed to “No Global
Warming” and/or “Global Cooling”.
At the fringes of lunacy-Glennn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, etc. ad nauseum-there will
be a different psychosis. The environmentalists and Warmies did it! They made
Global Warming happen! After all didn’t someone once write a book saying so?
As for you sir, where what will you be saying when the Arctic Ice Cap turns to
ice cubes?
0
Robert Morris
June 14, 2010 5:34 pm
Seth Cuttlefish says:
June 14, 2010 at 2:57 pm
…
Obvious troll is obvious.
Anyhow, well done to the two good men McIntyre and McKitrick you deserve this
and much more.
0
Dave F
June 14, 2010 5:38 pm
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/ArmstrongGreenSoon08-Anatomy-d/EssexMcKitrickAndresen07-globalT_JNET2007.pdf
This paper still valid?
0
CO2
June 14, 2010 5:47 pm
Sourced from Wikipedia;
“CEI is an outspoken anthropogenic climate change denialist and an opponent of
government action that would require limits on greenhouse gas emissions. It
favours free-market environmentalism, claiming that market institutions are more
effective in protecting the environment than is government.
In March 1992, CEI’s founder Fred Smith said of anthropogenic climate change:
“Most of the indications right now are it looks pretty good. Warmer winters,
warmer nights, no effects during the day because of clouding, sounds to me like
we’re moving to a more benign planet, more rain, richer and easier productivity
to agriculture.”
CEI is a think tank funded by donations from individuals, foundations and
corporations. CEI does not accept government funding. Past and present funder’s
include the Scaife Foundations, Exxon Mobil, the Ford Motor Company Fund,
Pfizer, and the Earhart Foundation. CEI’s most recent television ad campaign,
entitled A Bright Future For Some, focused on energy policy and global warming,
criticizing policies advocated by former Vice President Al Gore. The CEI ad
aired nation-wide in March and April, 2008.” (URL’s edited)
Talk about giving oneself a pat on the back! Julian Simon, proponent of
unlimited mining of resources, unlimited population growth; whatever problems
arise, the market will fix it. Like the GFC? Who fixed it, if indeed it is? We
the minions with our taxes for the too big to fail. Big failures feeding on
little failures. Keep in mind that Mother Nature doesn’t do bail outs and isn’t
too big to fail.
0
John M
June 14, 2010 5:54 pm
villabolo says:
June 14, 2010 at 5:29 pm
“By the way, horse manure was actually called pollution back then.”
plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose
0
nano drv
June 14, 2010 5:56 pm
A good time to recall again John Daly. He was on one of the first hacked mails
and also a Canadian. RIP
0
Jeremy
June 14, 2010 6:12 pm
We live in a sick society. These gentlemen deserve far far more credit.
However, “whistleblowers” tend to be shunned in our society. It is better to lie
and cheat (=Nobel Prize) then to be seen as an outsider who refuses to play
along with the latest fashionable claptrap. So sad.
Meanwhile the fraudsters like Pachauri and Gore will simply move on to the next
“big thing” – idolized & sponsered by the “disaster story” seeking media and
speaking eloquently to packed auditoriums with total conviction about their next
new ponzi scheme.
Disgusting to think that neither McIntyre nor McKitrick have made a single cent
out of all the good work they have done for society – meanwhile the Goldman
Sachs sponsored fraudsters have their pockets lined with dirty money.
How can one have any faith in a society that rewards gangsters and shuns honest
citizens? No wonder we have such a mess in the West.
0
sammy knows
June 14, 2010 6:15 pm
those two boys, mr m & m, along with mr watts, deserve the congressional medal
of honor for calling out the snake oil, liar, self interest ,elitist hypocrits
associated with the agw dogma…congrats mr m & m…may u live long and
prosper!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
0
jack morrow
June 14, 2010 6:16 pm
RBateman says 3:24
Yes Robert ,at least the equivalent, and a hat tip to Mosher and Fuller for
their work putting all of the “expose” in a book that I have on my desk now.
0
Eric Paisley
June 14, 2010 6:17 pm
Co2 has a very good point. It is mind boggling stupid to accept an award from
the CEI. It is mind boggling stupid to associate with a right wing clown like
Monckton.
Goldman Sachs chose Obama, so did the most of the rest of corporate America.
That’s how they operate. They put the money on their guy, or their cause, like
global warming. Obama’s only chance of re-election is if Goldman Sachs put up
the money for Palin to win the Republican nomination.
0
johnnythelowery
June 14, 2010 6:19 pm
Well done. I hope it comes with Cold Cash! A big thank you.
0
Jimmy Haigh
June 14, 2010 6:19 pm
It’s about time that the efforts of men “such as these” got recognised.
0
CO2
June 14, 2010 6:24 pm
Dave F says:
June 14, 2010 at 5:38 pm
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/ArmstrongGreenSoon08-Anatomy-d/EssexMcKitrickAndresen07-globalT_JNET2007.pdf
This paper still valid?
———————
It never was or will be, it is a rather stupid argument about averages. Here’s a
segment from the paper;
“In economics, for example, an exchange rate is meaningfulwhen comparing two
currencies, but the ideas of a ‘‘global exchange rate’’ or a sum over exchange
rates are both nonsensical. Regardless of the fact that enough data exist to
compute something analogous to a ‘‘global temperature’’ for the money markets,
neither the level nor the trend in such a statistics would provide any
meaningful information about the global economy. Another example: Individual
telephone numbers are both meaningful and useful, while the sum or average over
telephone numbers in a directory have no meaning.”
To use the above analogies is plain dumb, has anyone ever heard of a “global
exchange rate”? Tally up the phone numbers of an entire phone book and come up
with an average telephone number? Just because one can think up non-sensical
averages, doesn’t prove that there are no sensical ones. The above cited are
pedantic arguments no respectable scientist would be part of. Averages may or
may not be real. If the average wage is $500 per week, some people will actually
earn that amount, some more and some less. If you ride a bicycle over a given
distance one day at 20 kmh and another day at 10 kmh, your average speed is 7.5
kmh. Did you ride at 7.5 kmh on either day? No you didn’t but the average is
still a valid statistical value for use in a different context.
The same argument goes for global temperatures and averages serve an important
scientific purpose to establish trends. I know that the skeptic don’t like
trends, an inconvenient truth if you like.
0
CO2
June 14, 2010 6:26 pm
Correction; make that average bicycle speed 15 kmh.
0
Gail Combs
June 14, 2010 6:35 pm
Seth Cuttlefish says:
June 14, 2010 at 2:57 pm
CEI is hardly scientific on the subject of global warming. They were the ones
that run the adds saying the CO2 was harmless: “it’s essential to life. We
breathe it out. Plants breathe it in… They call it pollution. We call it life.”
____________________________________________________________
SO Seth, if yo believe CO2 is pollution how about not producing any CO2
pollution what so ever?
I am sure that many of us would love to see Al Gore, Maurice Strong, Obama, Mann
and the rest cut their “carbon foot” print to zero. The sooner the better.
0
Andrew30
June 14, 2010 6:41 pm
CO2 says: June 14, 2010 at 5:47 pm
“Sourced from Wikipedia;”
Bla, bla, bla….
’nuff said.
0
E O'Connor
June 14, 2010 6:48 pm
nono drv
This is from John Daly’s website:
“Originally from Britain, I came to live in Tasmania in 1980, …..”
0
Boris Gimbarzevsky
June 14, 2010 6:49 pm
Congratulations to two guys who aren’t recognized in their own country. You’d
think that the demolishing of the hocky stick graph would rate some attention
from the Canadian government, especially given the effect on the economy that
following the junk science from the IPCC would cause. What’s also noteworthy is
that these two guys had no government support and did the work on their own
time. I’ve learned a lot of stats from the climateaudit site which, on a good
day, I can just barely follow. I’m glad that WUWT is around to bring the same
information in a less technical form to a much larger audience.
Canadian politicians seem to be the same as politicians everywhere else and view
the prospect of carbon taxes as a means of massively increasing government
revenues. I live in BC which has a carbon tax which goes up every year and, if
global cooling becomes the norm, people will be penalized more and more for
heating their homes in winter. The last thing politicians here want is more
widespread recognition of how M&M have so completely debunked the “scientific”
foundation for carbon taxes.
0
Bill Sticker
June 14, 2010 6:53 pm
Good news. Pity it isn’t a Nobel prize, but it looks like you only get one of
those if your proposer is selected by the Nobel committee.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/nomination/
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/nomination/
Nonetheless. Sterling work, and also to you Anthony.
0
Robert Austin
June 14, 2010 7:27 pm
dearieme says:
June 14, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Just more evidence that Canadians are finer, nobler people. And too polite to
say so (well, too polite to say so very often).
Canada also produced prominent CAGW’ers David Suzuki, Andrew Weaver, Gordon
McBean, James Hoggan etc. Fortunately, M & M trump them all.
0
villabolo
June 14, 2010 7:29 pm
Gail Combs says:
June 14, 2010 at 6:35 pm
Seth Cuttlefish says:
June 14, 2010 at 2:57 pm
____________________________________________________________
SO Seth, if yo believe CO2 is pollution how about not producing any CO2
pollution what so ever?
—————————————————————————————
I’m sure that is a misrepresentation of what Seth really means.
Other than the obvious reason that CO2 and as part of the natural process is
essential to Carbon based life is the fact that Climatologists clearly state
that CO2 in its present amounts keeps the Earth from plunging into an ice age.
As I said in a previous post it is not the mere presence of CO2 that is the
problem but the amounts.
0
peter fimmel
June 14, 2010 7:43 pm
Congratulations to both. A Herculean task well done , and hopefully more
accolades will follow.
0
AndiC
Editor
June 14, 2010 7:47 pm
CO2 says:
June 14, 2010 at 6:24 pm
If you ride a bicycle over a given distance one day at 20 kmh and another day at
10 kmh, your average speed is 7.5 kmh. Did you ride at 7.5 kmh on either day? No
you didn’t but the average is still a valid statistical value for use in a
different context.
…I know CO2 later corrected that to 15Kmh, but I suspect CO2 belongs to teh
hockey-stick statistical society
Isn’t the correct calculation 13.3 Kmh??? Or has my schoolboy math let me down?
0
CO2
June 14, 2010 8:14 pm
AndiC says:
June 14, 2010 at 7:47 pm
CO2 says:
June 14, 2010 at 6:24 pm
If you ride a bicycle over a given distance one day at 20 kmh and another day at
10 kmh, your average speed is 7.5 kmh. Did you ride at 7.5 kmh on either day? No
you didn’t but the average is still a valid statistical value for use in a
different context.
…I know CO2 later corrected that to 15Kmh, but I suspect CO2 belongs to teh
hockey-stick statistical society
Isn’t the correct calculation 13.3 Kmh??? Or has my schoolboy math let me down?
—————–
Yes it has; 20+10=30 divide by 2 equals 15. Somewhere you lost 1.7 kmh
Hockey-stick tatistical Society? Quelle imagination. Have you read any of the
subsequent debunking of the hockey-stick? Perhaps not, you don’t read opposite
arguments, do you? Try for a change, it’s good to have knowledge from both
sides.
0
ralphieGM
June 14, 2010 8:21 pm
Just wanted to add my congrats to the heroes. Bravo.
0
CO2
June 14, 2010 8:22 pm
Bill Sticker says:
June 14, 2010 at 6:53 pm
Good news. Pity it isn’t a Nobel prize, but it looks like you only get one of
those if your proposer is selected by the Nobel committee.
—————————-
As it should be, the committee receives nominations, the committee decides by
vote. Nothing sinister just a democratic process.
Can you suggest a better way? I know you will come up with an alternative way,
how about Christopher Monckton, he already (and falsely) claims to be a Nobel
Prize Laureate.
0
CO2
June 14, 2010 8:27 pm
Robert Austin says:
June 14, 2010 at 7:27 pm
dearieme says:
June 14, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Just more evidence that Canadians are finer, nobler people. And too polite to
say so (well, too polite to say so very often).
Canada also produced prominent CAGW’ers David Suzuki, Andrew Weaver, Gordon
McBean, James Hoggan etc. Fortunately, M & M trump them all.
———————
You left out one of Canada’s better products; John Ralston Saul. With M & M,
were you referring to the nasty coloured sweets?
0
Anu
June 14, 2010 8:28 pm
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Nothing says “Climate Science Watchdog” like an award honoring a professor of
business administration:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Simon
The timing is perfect, too.
Months before the alarmist Arctic sea ice tries some attention-grabbing stunt
this Summer:
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/ice_ext_n.png
Hey, if Arctic sea ice was important, the Free Market would just produce more of
it after the death spiral.
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
0
Gordon Ford
June 14, 2010 8:32 pm
13.3 kmh is correct. It takes 3 units of time to travel the given distance at
each speed. 1unit at 20 kmh and 2 units at 10 kmh. Think of traveling 20 km down
a road at 20 km then going back the 20 km at 10 km. Distance traveled – 40 km.
Time taken – 3 hr. 40/3 = 1.33
0
CO2
June 14, 2010 8:45 pm
Boris Gimbarzevsky says:
June 14, 2010 at 6:49 pm
“…especially given the effect on the economy that following the junk science
from the IPCC would cause. …I’ve learned a lot of stats from the climateaudit
site which, on a good day, I can just barely follow. I’m glad that WUWT is
around to bring the same information in a less technical form to a much larger
audience.”
——————————
If you can barely follow the statistics on a good day, how did you conclude that
the IPCC uses junk science? Was that your own conclusion or just repeating from
a blog. Is there any junk science on your side of the argument? Of course not,
anything that argues against global warming is A+ science, the rest is just
junk. A global conspiracy. Get real. I’m all for less technical explanations,
for as long as they do not distort the basic premise.
0
Robert Austin
June 14, 2010 8:52 pm
AndiC says:
June 14, 2010 at 7:47 pm
Yes, CO2 is obviously an expert in calculating averages and eminently qualified
to trash
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/ArmstrongGreenSoon08-Anatomy-d/EssexMcKitrickAndresen07-globalT_JNET2007.pdf
0
Walter Schneider
June 14, 2010 8:54 pm
nano drv says:
June 14, 2010 at 5:56 pm
A good time to recall again John Daly. He was on one of the first hacked mails
and also a Canadian. RIP
John Daly, a Canadian? Which John Daly would that be?
From http://www.john-daly.com/dalybio.htm
John L. Daly
Profile of a Greenhouse `skeptic’
Originally from Britain, I came to live in Tasmania in 1980, settling near
Launceston, and for the last 9 years have been one of the numerous `skeptics’
speaking out publicly against the Global Warming scare, which makes exaggerated
claims that the earth will warm by +1.5 to +6 deg. C. due to an enhanced
Greenhouse Effect.
Climate and climate change has been a lifelong study of mine since my early days
as a ship’s officer in the British Merchant Navy. I have lived through and
traced the progress of the `ice age’ scare of the 1970’s, the `nuclear winter’
scare of the 1980s, and now the `global warming’ scare of the present. All these
scares have advanced the interests of what was a small academic discipline 30
years ago to become a mammoth global industry today. It is my view that this
industry has, through the `politics of fear’ which it has promoted, acted
against the interests of the public.
See also: Still Waitng for Greenhouse, http://www.john-daly.com
0
grayman
June 14, 2010 8:59 pm
Congrats to 2 fine gentlemen on this award, may more reconigtion for your work
come your way
0
Phil Brisley
June 14, 2010 9:09 pm
M&M’s reasoned and detached inquirey is working… we all hope they have the
energy to continue, this is going to be a protracted academic arguement. CO2
captures heat flow, which is why a mosquito can find you, CO2’s weight confines
it to the proximity of the planet’s surface, where it’s needed, it is not that
envolved with climate…however, I’m listening.
0
CO2
June 14, 2010 9:15 pm
Gordon Ford says:
June 14, 2010 at 8:32 pm
13.3 kmh is correct. It takes 3 units of time to travel the given distance at
each speed. 1unit at 20 kmh and 2 units at 10 kmh. Think of traveling 20 km down
a road at 20 km then going back the 20 km at 10 km. Distance traveled – 40 km.
Time taken – 3 hr. 40/3 = 1.33
————————-
Typical denial obfuscation of something simple;
To keep it simple for simple readers I simply stated to travel a distance one
day at 20 kmh and another day (it may well have been the same day or a week
later or whatever) the same distance at 10 kmh. No going back involved and
simply assuming constant speed on each occasion. The distances are equal, the
speeds are constant and there are only two units. Distance irrelevant.
Do you want it simpler than that? One tin with 20 cookies, one tin with 10
cookies, average tin 15 cookies.
0
Peter Ward
June 14, 2010 9:24 pm
Excellent news! Congratulations on some overdue recognition.
0
crosspatch
June 14, 2010 9:38 pm
Thank you two very much. I am deeply thankful there are people like you in this
world. You have devoted so much time and effort on behalf of us all. Your love
of science, real science, shows through and your devotion has not gone
unnoticed. The world owes you a debt of gratitude that we can never fully repay.
0
villabolo
June 14, 2010 9:51 pm
Anu says:
June 14, 2010 at 8:28 pm
“Hey, if Arctic sea ice was important, the Free Market would just produce more
of it after the death spiral.”
Almost sounds theological.
What is most amusing from my perspective is comparing statements like that to
the actual repercussions to the World economy an open body of Ocean in the
Arctic would create.
Estimated time: Ten to twenty years for complete meltdown. Half as long for
substantially open waters.
Temperature increase of the Arctic Ocean, 6-9 degrees Fahrenheit. Which will
cause intensification of water evaporation. This in turn will lead to more
intense rains of the type we’ve been getting in Minneapolis, Tennessee, Fargo
and now Oklahoma. More severe droughts in other areas.
0
CO2
June 14, 2010 10:01 pm
#
#
Walter Schneider says:
June 14, 2010 at 8:54 pm
Climate and climate change has been a lifelong study of mine since my early days
as a ship’s officer in the British Merchant Navy. I have lived through and
traced the progress of the `ice age’ scare of the 1970′s, the `nuclear winter’
scare of the 1980s, and now the `global warming’ scare of the present. All these
scares have advanced the interests of what was a small academic discipline 30
years ago to become a mammoth global industry today. It is my view that this
industry has, through the `politics of fear’ which it has promoted, acted
against the interests of the public.
—————————
I have followed the global warming issue for a similar period. What do you mean
by the “ice age scare”? It was one scientist’s (if) qualified hypothesis and it
didn’t get much attention at the time; no global panic. The “nuclear winter
scare” of the 1980’s, didn’t create a global panic. Again it was an hypothesis
of what could happen during a global nuclear war. Apart from radiation fall-out
the massive amount of aerosols would cause rapid global cooling. A small
academic decipline of 30 years ago, grown into a mammoth global industry of
spreading fear? Really? I always thought that the average citizen recognised
spin for what it is. Apparently they don’t. Yes, you’ll accuse me of the same,
but I read all science, whenever I can, both for and against, I try to be
informed. But I don’t fall for ‘scares’, conspiracies or the multitude of
‘gates’ created on a whim. I’ll take any reasoned argument but detest hyperbole.
Why do you make qualified statements into definitive ones? Such as; “…claims
that the earth WILL warm by +1.5 to +6 deg. C. due to an enhanced Greenhouse
Effect.” (my emphasis)
When I read the documents, they are projections and invariably conditional.
0
villabolo
June 14, 2010 10:18 pm
Walter Schneider says, quoting John Daly:
June 14, 2010 at 8:54 pm
“I have lived through and traced the progress of the `ice age’ scare of the
1970′s, the `nuclear winter’ scare of the 1980s, and now the `global warming’
scare of the present.”
I recall the Nuclear Winter issue. I was a nuclear survivalist who did not take
the idea seriously because the facts, as presented by Carl Sagan, seem stretched
out.
On the other hand, the so called Ice Age scare was a general media fabrication.
The majority of scientists believed in Global Warming back then.
The “talking point” statement that goes, “Scientists said in the 1970’s that an
Ice Age was coming.” Implies that someone must have done a survey of
Climatologists in order to find out whether the majority believed in Ice Age or
Global Warming. None of the magazines cited like Time or Newsweek even pretended
to have done such a survey. They simply had articles based on what so and so
said. So and so would simply be a “scientist” or two. So how would anyone know
what the majority of Climatologists thought one way or the other?
It wasn’t until this claim was made that the matter was looked into by the AGW
crowd and discovered that 85% of scientific papers in that time period supported
AGW and 15% believed in Global Cooling.
0
Dan
June 14, 2010 10:58 pm
I’m glad to see CO2 finally straightening out the complicated statistic problem
of the average speed of a bicycle.
On the other hand, when trying to compute global average temperatures one
quickly runs into so much problems of defining what temperatures to average, and
how they respond to spurious inputs, not to mention the number of measuring
points needed, that the whole excercise soon becomes meaningless.
Trying to average the speeds of all bicyclists all over the word would be a good
comparison.
While it is possible to (fairly…) easily calculate an average bicycle speed, it
is not self-evident that a global mean temperature can be averaged with any
accuracy.
0
Doug
June 14, 2010 11:40 pm
Seth Cuttlefish says:
June 14, 2010 at 2:57 pm
CEI is hardly scientific on the subject of global warming. They were the ones
that run the adds saying the CO2 was harmless: “it’s essential to life. We
breathe it out. Plants breathe it in… They call it pollution. We call it life.”
Further to other comments above – Seth, talk to an Anaesthetist, they will tell
you that your bodies pCO2 levels are what triggers breathing. If your pCO2 blood
levels are too low you stop breathing. CO2 is indeed a vital part of the Carbon
Cycle.
Seth – also talk to someone who knows about plant photosynthesis. When you have
done both of these things – have a little ponder about what you said and the
motivation behind your questioning what the CEI states when what they say is
true fact.
Methinks you are listening to hype and spin.
0
Kunoichi
June 15, 2010 12:09 am
Congratulations to two worthy gentlemen!
0
Roy UK
June 15, 2010 12:59 am
Congratulations to both McIntyre and McKitrick, keep up the good work.
@ CO2, villabolo, Seth.
Completely O/T comments. There are plenty of other threads on this site about
sea ice, CO2, models etc you could popst your comments on. Why not go back to
fakeclimate instead of hijacking threads over here. Nothing you read here will
ever change your minds so please go back to your love in.
0
JJD
June 15, 2010 1:06 am
@CO2:
If you travel “a certain distance” at 2o km/h one day and the same distance at
10 km/h the second day, the average speed for the two days is 40/3 km/h. Without
loss of generality, we can assume that the “certain distance” is 20 km. In that
case, the travel time on the first day is 1 h, the travel time on the second day
is 2h, and the total distance traveled is 40 km. The average speed is 40km/3h,
which is approximately 13.3 km/h. Claiming the average speed is (20 + 10)/2
betrays a lack of knowledge of grade 9 mathematics. This kind of problem can
literally be found in first year algebra textbooks. So now that we have
established your level of mathematical competence, CO2, shall we guess at your
level of understanding of the science?
0
CO2
June 15, 2010 1:20 am
Dan says:
June 14, 2010 at 10:58 pm
Just look at;
Gordon Ford says:
June 14, 2010 at 8:32 pm
Who’s complicating what? As for the issue at hand, global temperature have a
look at http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2007/03/ineed-a-title.ars
This is the last paragraph of the author’s letter;
Quote; There are few things in this world designed to annoy me more than bad
science. I can handle ineffectual science, which, in my darker moments, is the
label I give my own research. But the combination of rhetorical posturing,
statistical strawmen, and questionable examples were, simply put, nauseating.
Combined with the fact that one of the authors studies thermodynamics (and is
therefore making deliberate distortions) and the paper made it through peer
review means that I am typing this with a bucket beside me. I hate to put
readers through this, but this is your punishment for demanding balance. :)end
Quote
0
PaulM
June 15, 2010 1:23 am
CO2 still cannot do elementary math, even after it has been explained to him by
AndiC and Gordon.
“If you ride a bicycle over a given distance one day at 20 kmh and another day
at 10 kmh, your average speed is 7.5 kmh.” (later ‘corrected’ to 15).
Let’s suppose the distance is 20km to make it easy. The first day you do the
20km in 1 hour. The second day at 10kmh it takes you 2 hours. Your average speed
is therefore
total distance / total time = 40/3 = 13.3
as stated by AndiC and Gordon.
The point is, you spend more time going at the lower speed.
In view of this, I don’t think anyone needs to take CO2’s comments on the paper
by Chris Essex (Math Professor) and Ross McKitrick very seriously!
0
Ken Hall
June 15, 2010 2:01 am
Villabollo, There is a commercial tomato grower in the UK who buys tonnes of
waste foodstuffs rejected by supermakets. This he stores in massive sealed
underground silos, the methane these give off is captured and burned to create
the heat for his tomato greenhouses so he can grow tomatoes all year round. The
CO2 produced from burning the methane is pumped into the greenhouses at an
atmospheric concentration 4 times greater than what is in the normal outdoor
atmosphere. His yield increased 4 fold since he increased the CO2.
There is not enough carbon based fuel on the planet to increase the atmospheric
concentration of CO2 by a factor of 4!
There is no danger of there being too much Anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere.
Oh and have you seen the Arctic ice lately? (since 2007) The Antarctic ice is
also at record high levels.
As for the Sahara? Have you seen the parts of the Sahara that are now turning
green with vegetation? That does not get on the news either for some strange
reason.
0
Disputin
June 15, 2010 2:15 am
I think CO2 might have bitten off a little more than he can chew here.
“CO2 says:
June 14, 2010 at 9:15 pm
Gordon Ford says:
June 14, 2010 at 8:32 pm
13.3 kmh is correct. It takes 3 units of time to travel the given distance at
each speed. 1unit at 20 kmh and 2 units at 10 kmh. Think of traveling 20 km down
a road at 20 km then going back the 20 km at 10 km. Distance traveled – 40 km.
Time taken – 3 hr. 40/3 = 1.33
————————-
Typical denial obfuscation of something simple;
To keep it simple for simple readers I simply stated to travel a distance one
day at 20 kmh and another day (it may well have been the same day or a week
later or whatever) the same distance at 10 kmh. No going back involved and
simply assuming constant speed on each occasion. The distances are equal, the
speeds are constant and there are only two units. Distance irrelevant.
Do you want it simpler than that? ”
The problem is he brought in the distance, which he now says is irrelevant. If
you do equal times at the two speeds, then the average is certainly 15; but
equal distances mean you spend twice as long at the lower speed and so the
average is 13.333. I seem to recall something like this in the early years at
secondary school. Arguably, since most of us want to ride a bicycle to get
somewhere, it is the second average that is the more relevant.
In the case of average temperatures a similar effect occurs in spades. Aside
from the trivial fact that a non-linear system exquisitely sensitive to starting
conditions requires a completely impractical density of datum points, just what
average temperature do you require? Should the temperatures be adjusted, say,
for the adiabatic lapse rate? What about air density? Should we in fact be
looking at energy content? (and since this is essentially a water world, this
should include the energy content of the world’s water in all three phases).
Does CO2 think it reasonable to take temperature records for one site as valid
for somewhere twenty miles away, even with identical sensor siting?
All in all, I think the McCritics have done an excellent job in bringing
peoples’ attention to some of the essentials of statistics. Well done,
Gentlemen!
0
CO2
June 15, 2010 2:20 am
Phil Brisley says:
June 14, 2010 at 9:09 pm
“M&M’s reasoned and detached inquirey is working… we all hope they have the
energy to continue, this is going to be a protracted academic arguement. CO2
captures heat flow, which is why a mosquito can find you, CO2′s weight confines
it to the proximity of the planet’s surface, where it’s needed, it is not that
envolved with climate…however, I’m listening.”
——————————
What’s the relevance of a mosquito? CO2’s weight confines it to the proximity of
the planet’s surface? So, capturing CO2 is simple then, it will conveniently
fall down next to the chimney into big funnels. CO2 not involved with the
climate? Spend a day in your fridge just to get an idea of how cold the world
would be without it. Just as a fore-taste that is; want to go for a swim? Try
somewhere close to the equator using your snowmobile to get there.
Protracted academic argument? Sorry, for the academics at large it is already
dead in the water.
0
Green Sand
June 15, 2010 2:45 am
Apart from the logical scientific approach that M & M have applied, the major
factor for me, along with their tenacity, has been their decency and dignity.
These are powerful attributes when in search of the truth.
Well done gentlemen!
Thank you!
0
Dan
June 15, 2010 2:52 am
CO2:
It is probably not very difficult to find several articles supporting my view.
They would, also probably, be better written and without displaying the author’s
mood.
The mood of the author does nothing to make his views more convincing to the
reader, they serve only to convince himself that he is right.
0
John A
June 15, 2010 3:49 am
I’ll just say that I think Ross and Steve have taken the best shots of the
global warming industry and have barely been gloved by their opponents. There’s
a perfectly good reason why they were mentioned so often in the Climategate
emails – because their opponents were (and are) mortally afraid of them.
In 2005, when Climate Audit was launched, there was palpable fear over what the
Hockey Team could do to academics (and everyone else) who dared criticize them.
That’s why M&M 2005 (GRL) was such a landmark achievement, because after the
orchestrated swiftboating (mostly completely unjustified) given to Soon and
Baliunas in 2003 over their meta-study, there were virtually no scientists
prepared to put their head above the parapet.
For that reason, and the advent of RealClimate which was designed to given swift
pre-buttal and rebuttal to M&M 2005, it was vital that Steve had an outlet to
respond to the Hockey Team in near realtime.
I remember the “climate of fear” really well – it seems like a long time ago
doesn’t it? I remember how circumspect people were about admitting that they
were reading Climate Audit, let alone commenting.
Of course, the greatest assistance to the growth of Climate Audit (and WUWT and
JeffID and many others) has been due to our opponents: Michael Mann, Gavin
Schmidt, William Connelley, Eric Steig, Tom Crowley et al – whose studious
inability to respond to reasoned criticism and argument has been outstanding.
Now in 2010 Michael Mann’s star has fallen right to earth, and I’m sure many
researchers think twice about co-authoring any papers with him. Ammann and Wahl
are now fixtures in the blogosphere for trying to rescue the Hockey Stick by
inventing their own statistical methods. Gavin Schmidt is no longer quoted as an
unimpeachable source even by the BBC. William Connelley doesn’t work for the
British Antarctic Survey any more and is in perennial trouble at Wikipedia over
his heavy-handed twisting of history, while his former boss at the BAS has had
to ratchet down the alarmist rhetoric at the British Museum after an avalanche
of criticism.
I’m not being sarcastic – without the interventions of the incompetent Hockey
Team, McIntyre and McKitrick would have had minimal impact.
I hope they enjoy their dinner and their award because they thoroughly deserve
it.
0
CO2
June 15, 2010 4:02 am
Ken Hall says:
June 15, 2010 at 2:01 am
Villabollo,
There is not enough carbon based fuel on the planet to increase the atmospheric
concentration of CO2 by a factor of 4!
There is no danger of there being too much Anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere.
Oh and have you seen the Arctic ice lately? (since 2007) The Antarctic ice is
also at record high levels.
———————
CO2 by a factor of 4!? can you cite me the calculation?
Any level of CO2 is okay? Care to visit Venus?
Yes, I have looked at the arctic lately; record melt May 2010, from the start of
the melt season 2010, this year so far has melted 1 million square km more than
2009.
Since 2007? What a devious question, chosing the record 2007 melt as reference,
from which all scientists said that the arctic would recover. It did in 2008,
about 1/3rd, it did in 2009 also about 1/3rd, the remaining 1/3rd no. That’s
certainly not a case of “arctic recovered” as is continuously claimed on this
blog. Recovered is a definitive word and the arctic is all but definitive. In
order for the arctic to recover to 1980 levels, there would have to be the
mother of all recoveries, lasting more than the 3 decades it took to melt.
0
Alexander K
June 15, 2010 4:08 am
Congratulations to Mc and Mc – the history of the world takes new turns from
such efforts as yours to find truth and make it known. Thanks.
And trolls, please cease, in more ways than one, demeaning the meaning of the
word ‘science’.
0
dbstealey
June 15, 2010 4:22 am
John A says @3:49 am [ … ],
John A, trenchant comments. Those of us who have followed CA for the past 5
years know of the unflagging effort you have personally put into opposing the
cabal of the folks who have both front feet in the government/NGO grant trough.
Thanks.
0
val majkus
June 15, 2010 4:26 am
congratulations to Steve and Ross from down under where Anthony is touring at
the moment
0
Steve Keohane
June 15, 2010 4:37 am
Congratulations gentlemen. It is men with integrity such as yours that makes the
world a better place for us all.
0
UK Sceptic
June 15, 2010 6:04 am
Can’t think of a more deserving pair. Well done Stephen and Ross!
0
E O'Connor
June 15, 2010 6:28 am
Hey, don’t forget the poetry and music from Canadians!
Prime examples are Leonard Cohen and Gordon Lightfoot. Cohen tours Australia in
November.
Marshall McCluhan was also Canadian.
0
GrantB
June 15, 2010 6:54 am
PaulM – Absolutely correct. CO2’s tricky poser was, “If you ride a bicycle over
a given distance one day at 20 kmh and another day at 10 kmh, your average speed
is 7.5 kmh”. Note the words “given distance” and “average speed”. Dammit PaulM,
never mind your logical supposition of letting the distance be 20km, I’m going
to let it be 40km, just to really complicate this wonderful example provided by
CO2.
The first day you do the 40km in 2 hours at an average speed of 20km/h. The
second day you do the same 40 km in 4 hours at 10 km/h.
Total distance travelled = 80 km. Total time = 6 hours.
Average speed = 80/6 = 13.33 recurring.
Exercise for CO2.
1. Now do it over a 120km distance just to make it really complicated.
2. Present results here.
3. Comment on any similarities between PaulM’s and my result.
4. Repeat 1,2 and 3 for a SQRT(2) distance.
5. Apply for the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics when it next becomes vacant.
You would be hilarious if you weren’t so mathematically illiterate.
0
Leif Svalgaard
June 15, 2010 6:57 am
Disputin says:
June 15, 2010 at 2:15 am
I think CO2 might have bitten off a little more than he can chew here.
Some people [like CO2] make very strong and condescending] statements without
having the basics right. The correct answer is of course, 40/3=13.333…
0
Crispin in Waterloo
June 15, 2010 7:37 am
“There is not enough carbon based fuel on the planet to increase the atmospheric
concentration of CO2 by a factor of 4!”
+++
“CO2 by a factor of 4!? can you cite me the calculation?”
+++
Yes.
http://ujdigispace.uj.ac.za:8080/dspace/bitstream/10210/3094/1/Nel%20.pdf
Willem Nel, PhD Thesis, Geography Department, University of Johannesburg.
Probably the highest the CO2 level can be elevated is about 540 ppm and that is
based on doubling the total discoveries to date of oil, natural gas and coal.
The problem is peak energy, not peak oil. The estimate that the global
population will peak in 2050 matches the energy peak. It will fall to its
present level about 2100. By then all carbon fuels will have peaked, peak coal
coming about 2070 long after peak uranium, oil and gas.
Nel W.P., Cooper C.J. 2009. “Implications of fossil fuel constraints on economic
growth and global warming”, Energy Policy, 37(1), pp. 166–180.
Nel, W.P. [D], Cooper, C.J. [L] 2008. “A Critical Review of IEA’s Oil Demand
Forecast for China”, Energy Policy, 36(3), pp. 1096-1106.
http://ujlink.uj.ac.za/search~S1?/anel+w/anel+w/1%2C11%2C13%2CB/frameset&FF=anel+willem+p&1%2C1%2C/indexsort=-
0
Bruce Cobb
June 15, 2010 7:43 am
Pssst, hey, “C02”: Call the distance traveled on each day D (km), and the time
spent on day 1 to travel that distance T (hrs.). On the 2nd day, at half the
speed it will take twice as long to travel that same distance, so 2T (hrs.) To
get the average speed you add up the total distance to get 2D, and the total
time to get 3T, or 2D/3T, or 2/3 x D/T. In this case, we know that T = D/20,
because at 20kmh it takes 1 hr. to go 20 k. Now, plug D/20 in in place of T, and
you get the average of 2/3 x D/D/20, which = 40/3 kmh =
13 1/3 kmh. Simple algebra, really. Perhaps you didn’t get that far in school.
0
Noblesse Oblige
June 15, 2010 8:18 am
Congratulations to Ross and Steve… and to us! If it weren’t for these two
gentleman, climatism would have utterly triumphed. They demonstrate that the
sceintific method, so painfully assembled over 400 years, is still alive.
0
Alan F
June 15, 2010 8:26 am
M&M serve to offset the pollen sniffing rantings of David Suzuki.
0
kwik
June 15, 2010 8:53 am
Congratulations to M&M, and all the rest contributing over the years!
Now, dont expect any Nobel Peace Price. That price is politicized, and the
commitee, filled up with …politicians, seems to sit for 3 years at a time.
Here is the commitee mebers from the period when Al Gore got the price;
All politicians;
Mjøs, Ole Danbolt Christian People’s Party
Furre, Berger Ragnar Socialist Left Party
Five, Kaci Kullman Conservative
Rønbeck, Sissel Labour
Ytterhorn, Inger-Marie Progress Party
But the other Nobels are possible of course!
They are based on merits within Physics, economics, etc, and is in Stockholm,
not in Norway.
0
kwik
June 15, 2010 9:22 am
CO2 says:
June 15, 2010 at 4:02 am
This is hilarious! Coming here to WUWT trying to teach grownups algebra!
And getting it wrong! hohoho!
If you come back, please come as H2O, not CO2. That will give you more
credibility.
0
R. Craigen
June 15, 2010 9:29 am
CO2 says:
June 14, 2010 at 6:24 pm
If you ride a bicycle over a given distance one day at 20 kmh and another day at
10 kmh, your average speed is 7.5 kmh. Did you ride at 7.5 kmh on either day? No
you didn’t but the average is still a valid statistical value for use in a
different context.
AndiC says:
June 14, 2010 at 7:47 pm
…I know CO2 later corrected that to 15Kmh, but I suspect CO2 belongs to teh
hockey-stick statistical society
Isn’t the correct calculation 13.3 Kmh??? Or has my schoolboy math let me down?
CO2 says:
Yes it has; 20+10=30 divide by 2 equals 15. Somewhere you lost 1.7 kmh
Hockey-stick tatistical Society? Quelle imagination. Have you read any of the
subsequent debunking of the hockey-stick? Perhaps not, you don’t read opposite
arguments, do you? Try for a change, it’s good to have knowledge from both
sides.
——
Pardon me Mr C. You say “over a given distance”, presumably the same distance
both days. It makes no difference in the result what that distance is, so let us
say that it is 20 km. On the first day it takes one hour; on the second it takes
two.
Average Speed = (total distance) / (total time) = (20+20)/(10+20) = 40/3 ≈ 13.3
km/hr
Your error is a classic groaner, which I often use in class (I am a professor of
mathematics) to illustrate the counterintuitive nature of averaging, even in the
simplest cases. This illustrates the importance of mathematical training for
anyone pretending to understand climate issues. M&M has proven themselves quite
adept in this regard, and have repeatedly caught so-called “climate experts”
either fudging the statistics or simply bumbling the math at a grade-school like
this. Indeed, there is a pretty good case that global temperature averages, as
calculated by CRU, NOAA etc, are simply meaningless in a physical sense — and
that is before considering the ridiculous manner in which the process by which
they are derived is tampered with to support predetermined conclusions. In my
view M&M richly deserve broader recognition than this award, but the CEI’s
recognition is worthwhile for its own sake; they are proven contributors toward
cutting through climate BS.
As for the earlier business about CEI’s statement about CO2: Check out the
science on this. The natural conclusion from literally thousands of
peer-reviewed studies on the matter clearly demonstrate that, from the
perspective of the biosphere, the current levels of CO2 are TOO LOW. Plant
health, crop production, resilience to disease and pests, etc all appear to be
optimized, for the majority of plants, somewhere between 800 and 1500 ppm — two
to four times as much as the atmosphere holds today. As far as I know the CEI
has not “denied” the greenhouse effect but approach it as anyone knowing the
basics would: its effect is logarithmic (ie diminishes rapidly as a function of
increased CO2), CO2 infrared absorption covers only a tiny part of the spectrum,
and its theoretical effect on instrumental readings is tiny — the doom and gloom
projections you see rely not on 100 year old established physics about infrared
absorption, but upon still unproven hypothetical amplifiers of that effect,
which are increasingly being regarded by genuine climate experts as the
fictional nonsense that they are.
0
JAE
June 15, 2010 10:19 am
Smokey says:
“June 15, 2010 at 4:22 am
John A says @3:49 am [ … ],
John A, trenchant comments. Those of us who have followed CA for the past 5
years know of the unflagging effort you have personally put into opposing the
cabal of the folks who have both front feet in the government/NGO grant trough.
Thanks.”
I, too, wish to recognise John A for all the assistance (and wise comments!) he
provided at CA
0
villabolo
June 15, 2010 11:28 am
Ken Hall says:
June 15, 2010 at 2:01 am
“The CO2 produced from burning the methane is pumped into the greenhouses at an
atmospheric concentration 4 times greater than what is in the normal outdoor
atmosphere. His yield increased 4 fold since he increased the CO2.”
“There is not enough carbon based fuel on the planet to increase the atmospheric
concentration of CO2 by a factor of 4!”
“There is no danger of there being too much Anthropogenic CO2 in the
atmosphere.”
“Oh and have you seen the Arctic ice lately? (since 2007) The Antarctic ice is
also at record high levels.”
—————————————————————————————
—————————————————————————————
“The CO2 produced from burning the methane is pumped into the greenhouses at an
atmospheric concentration 4 times greater than what is in the normal outdoor
atmosphere. His yield increased 4 fold since he increased the CO2.”
I am aware that under experimental conditions increased CO2 helps plant growth.
The plants were inside tents, which keeps insects out. Outside, in the open, the
situation is different. Insects are even more attracted to certain plants than
they normally are causing devastation to the plants. The reason is that the
plant produces more of a certain substance that the insects eat.
Your example of a person who uses hyperbaric CO2 under enclosed conditions does
not necessarily contradict the pros and cons of increased CO2 mentioned by AGW
people.
Even if CO2 were to increase ALL plants growth in open ground it’s benefits
would canceled for the following reasons:
1. Increased growth due to increasing a SINGLE substance that plants consume
would automatically increase the plants needs for the OTHER substances that it
uses such as water and fertilizer or soil fertility. This would create a
bottleneck effect that would cancel out any other benefits for plants do not
live on CO2 alone.
You cannot assume that will automatically happen in the natural world or can be
made to happen in the human domain. You would need more rain then we get now for
forests and crops. As far as crops are concerned you cannot substitute
insufficient rain water with aquifer waters for long due to the fact that they
are being depleted throughout the World including the USA.
2. As far as soil fertility is concerned, it is not going to go up out of thin
air in the forests. In croplands you would need more fertilizer to provide the
larger more productive plants with the food they need. Artificial fertilizer is
made from natural gas and any major increase in its consumption will hasten the
arrival of “Peak Gas” (within a century or less?).
These two things, water and fertilizer, are bottlenecks that will prevent growth
of plants in the open land assuming that CO2 increases their growth without any
unintended ill effects.
—————————————————————————————
“As for the Sahara? Have you seen the parts of the Sahara that are now turning
green with vegetation? That does not get on the news either for some strange
reason.”
Since I do believe that CO2 insulates heat in our atmosphere to the degree that
physicists have determined it is obvious that expansion in deserts will not be
that good for plant growth except for certain types of deserts if cactus turns
one on.
As for the Sahara turning green, it is known that 5,000 years ago it was lush
with vegetation. The remains of hunter-gatherers have been found there. HOWEVER,
When the Sahara was green, large ares below it that were green before as well as
today were desert themselves. It is thought that a decrease in temperature
turned the Sahara into a desert, not directly of course, but by affecting the
rain patterns. If this seems counterintuitive please see the Wikipedia article
linked below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara#Climate_history
FURTHERMORE, the Sahara is EXPANDING SOUTH into what used to be farmland
contributing to the famines there and NORTH into the southern fringes of Spain.
So, if it is turning green in certain places but expanding in others the obvious
conclusion is that the desert IS SHIFTING POSITION, most probably to what it was
5,000 years ago when WARMER TEMPERATURES sucked in moisture from the ocean and
created monsoon conditions with cooler rain (see Wikipedia article linked
above).
—————————————————————————————
“There is not enough carbon based fuel on the planet to increase the atmospheric
concentration of CO2 by a factor of 4!”
I’m not sure whether there is enough “carbon based fuel” or not but the issue is
moot because there is plenty of carbon based BIOMASS to accomplish a fourfold
increase and more as well. Then you have the production of Methane in the
Siberian thawing permafrost. For an interesting, amusing and very graphic video
on the subject of Siberian Methane (as well as Alaskan) please see:
This permafrost melt is due to increased temperatures in Siberia of course.
—————————————————————————————
“There is no danger of there being too much Anthropogenic CO2 in the
atmosphere.”
Which means what exactly? That CO2, and while we’re at it, Methane has no heat
insulating abilities (greenhouse effect)? Why then did Physicists figure out
otherwise and did so before Global Warming was an issue?
How about the “The Sun Is Guilty!”. Other than the fact that Astrophysicists
know that the fluctuations in the Sun are not enough to create the temperature
rises that have been very noticeable since the 1980’s, and definitely not the
Ice Ages throughout Geological time, is the fact that increases in the Sun’s
energy output would be distributed equally throughout the Earth. Instead, our
current situation is that of a concentration of temperature in the Arctic region
about three times greater than the rest of the world.
—————————————————————————————
“Oh and have you seen the Arctic ice lately? (since 2007) The Antarctic ice is
also at record high levels.”
That reminds me of the old joke about the drunk who’s looking for his keys at
night under the street lamp. Why was he looking there when he lost it somewhere
else? Because the light was better.
Have you looked at the Arctic THICKNESS images which indicate a continued
reduction in ice thickness since 2007? It actually lost multiyear ice through
the WINTER of 2009 (September) to 2010 (March).
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100406_Figure6.png
Yes, I’m aware about the claims that it is thicker than those Satellite maps
project. But there are two points to be made about that.
First, there have been on site explorations by icebreakers and persons walking
the ice. The crew of the Amundsen, in September of 2009, reported going through
hundreds of miles of 20 inch thick rotten ice until they finally discovered a
multiyear ice floe 10 miles wide. Within five minutes it disintegrated before
their very eyes as ocean waves pounded it. The satellites cannot determine the
state of disintegration of the ice.
Second, the thinning of the Arctic Ice Cap has been steady and consistent ever
since the 1980’s with the possible exception of the winter of 2008 to 2009 where
it could have been slightly thinner or thicker.
If the submarine data does actually indicate a thicker ice cap at present then
it would be interesting to take 30 years of submarine measurements and compare
them with the satellite measurements for the same time period. Even if there is
a consistent discrepancy between the two, the trends of both should be that of
thinning.
0
ammonite
June 15, 2010 12:24 pm
I can only smile and smile. With pride for Steve, Ross and all those out there
involved. The fingering and smudging of the data now crystal clear for all to
see. Thank you.
0
R. Craigen
June 15, 2010 2:01 pm
> Hey, don’t forget the poetry and music from Canadians!
> Prime examples are Leonard Cohen and Gordon Lightfoot. Cohen tours Australia
> in November.
> Marshall McCluhan was also Canadian.
Bruce Cockburn. Mark Steyn. Doug Flutie (er, oops, the reverse. First
American-born player to be inducted into the Canadian Sports Hall of fame).
Michael J. Fox. Pamela Anderson. Monty Hall. David Frum. Christopher Plumber.
About half the American network news anchors (apparently American Broadcasters
feel the Canadian/”midwestern” accent is particularly easy on the ears). Etc. A
big chunk of the team of NASA engineers behind the Apollo project (who were
acquired when the Canadian Avro Arrow project was cancelled and suddenly a large
crack team of aerospace engineers was put out of work). Etc.
0
Chas
June 15, 2010 2:16 pm
CO2 erroneously proposes the following analogy:
“If you ride a bicycle over a given distance one day at 20 kmh and another day
at 10 kmh, your average speed is [15] kmh. Did you ride at [15] kmh on either
day? No you didn’t but the average is still a valid statistical value for use in
a different context.”
(note: CO2’s “correction” has been included, in “[]”)
So now let us correctly address CO2’s analogy. That is: what is the kinetic
energy of the system (i.e. 1/2 * m * V^2)?
Since the mass remains the same, CO2 effectively asserts that 10^2 + 20^2 = 2 *
15^2 (and thus asserts that 500 = 450). This is clearly a false statement.
Similarly, a surface radiates energy according to the Stefan–Boltzmann law
(which exhibits a T^4 dependence). Thus CO2’s argument amounts to the assertion
that (A^4 + B^4) = (0.5*(A+B))^4 (the reader is free to insert CO2’s “10”, “20”
and “15” into this relationship, to confirm it’s falsehood).
Since we observe that different regions are at different local temperatures,
they radiate at different rates (and thus the Earth is clearly not a black
body).
Let me be quite clear about this — the Earth does not have “a temperature”
(singular).
0
GrantB
June 15, 2010 2:24 pm
CO2 has gone strangely silent. Perhaps he/she is beavering away over some
primary school maths books.
0
Carsten Arnholm, Norway
June 15, 2010 2:43 pm
Sincere congratulations to McIntyre and McKitrick.
0
Gail Combs
June 15, 2010 3:59 pm
WOW, I guess Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick are really hitting the Climate
Conmen where it hurts, they are even attacking Dr Judith Curry!
“…But that specific timing issue of the blogs, while important to Curry’s effort
to paint McIntyre as some sort of (mostly innocent) victim of attacks by
blogging scientists, is irrelevant to the bigger issue, which Curry has
backwards. Curry seems to think that the blogosphere is the only place that
matters. McIntyre started his attacks in 2003, long before RC was set up. And if
you believe that ExxonMobil money wasn’t connected to the McIntyre-McItrick
attack on the hockey stick, read this long Deep Climate piece or a very good
summary by DeSmogBlog. (And no, being connected to oil money doesn’t inherently
invalidate the attacks, but it does kind of scramble Curry’s narrative.)“
http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/24/my-response-to-dr-judith-currys-unconstructive-essay/
I just very briefly skimmed the article but I still think I need a shower.
0
Paul Coppin
June 15, 2010 4:32 pm
CO2 and Villabolo: Way, way too late to the party. Grade school understanding of
the science gets you a fail. Can we help you find your way back out?
0
Dave F
June 15, 2010 6:18 pm
So there is no published rebuttal aside from CO2’s debunked averaging theory?
0
Ric Werme
June 15, 2010 6:26 pm
The bicycling example I like to use has the same trick, but it’s something I
formulated when I thinking black thoughts about bicycling over hills.
Suppose I normally ride at 20 km/h, but there’s a hill that’s 1 km up and 1 km
down. I can only ride up at 10 km/h. How fast do I have to ride down to keep my
average speed at 20 km/h?
0
E O'Connor
June 15, 2010 7:36 pm
Carsten Arnholm’s site is worth a look for his space images and how to make an
observatory in your back yard with a purchased garden shed and adapting the roof
so it rolls sideways!
Great site Carsten
http://arnholm.org/astro/
Click on Observatory under the Equipment Heading for the garden shed observatory
details.
0
JAE
June 15, 2010 7:38 pm
Gail Combs: Thanks for the links. WOW, OH WOW, how unhinged the “consensus”
folks have become because of the troublesome truth of M&M. It is absolutely
hilarious! They need to turn in their sheepskins!
0
John Murphy
June 16, 2010 4:12 am
Their names will go down in history as honourable. That’s more than anyone can
say about thelikes of Hansen, Jones, Schmidt and his Goreable.
Does anyone know where I can get the records of the temperature stations that
used to be included in theUSHCN, but are now no longer included?
0
John Murphy
June 16, 2010 4:19 am
Rick Werme
Light speed won’t do it. You’re shot at the top of the hill, used your whole
1/10 hour already.
0
Hu McCulloch
June 16, 2010 6:54 am
James Hansen recently was awarded $250,000 by the Heinz Foundation — his hands
are literally red with ketchup money!
And Lonnie and Ellen Thompson recently were given $1M by the David Dan
Foundation — I have no clue what Dan’s agenda is. Wiki says he’s a successful
businessman.
So let’s hope CEI comes up with at least $2M for Steve and Ross!
0
Chas
June 16, 2010 7:07 am
Arrghh….Gail ! Why did you point me to Deep Climate and DeSmogBlog? Now I feel
dirty, too.
Deep Climate apparently thinks that Coby Beck and Tim Lambert know something
about climate science…pathetic. I also find it amusing (and indeed, quite
biased) when a site directs readers to these sorts of sites, and to Real
Climate, without also directing readers to “the opposition”.
I take such actions as public admission that the robustness of their “science”
is based on concealing opposing views. Thus is the life of a True Believer… Note
how they scream “kill the heretics!”…
Science is not done in a vacuum, it is not done without challenge, and it is not
done by popular vote.
0
Dave F
June 16, 2010 9:05 am
“The notion of being globally ‘‘hotter’’ or ‘‘colder’’ for out-of-equilibrium
systems
is not altogether without merit. Miami in January, with temperatures
ranging from 20 to 30C, say, is certainly warmer than Toronto at, say, 15
to 5C. However, this ranking of relative warmth is not based on averages,
but on the ranges in respective temperature fields.”
This is the part that interests me the most.
0
John A
June 16, 2010 12:53 pm
I think “Deep Climate” should be really named “Deep Swiftboating”. Its rare to
find such incredible character assassination outside of the extreme fringes of
the Republican Party.
I read about half the article before boredom set in. There was more straw men
fallacies in that half an article than I ever seen even on Doltoid.
Only the already convinced would find that article at all persuasive.
0
Caleb
June 20, 2010 1:09 am
My wake-up call came when CA published the entry, “A New Leaderboard at the U.S.
Open,” on August 8, 2007. I heard about it while listening to an obscure talk
radio show, which referred me to an article in the Toronto Star. After reading
the article I visited the CA site for the first time. I was immediately
horrified, as I became aware for the first time of Hansen’s “adjustments.”
I was so upset I mentioned my upset in a newsy email I sent out regularly to my
friends. One friend happened to be a leftist, and he promptly hit the “reply
all” button and tore me to shreds, publicly, for being a “ditto head.” (I was
unaware Rush Limbaugh had commented on “A New Leaderboard at the U.S. Open,” a
few days after it was posted.) This awoke me to the fact that, if you dared
question the way Hansen was coming up with his data, you could expect to get
blasted. It was a sort of baptism by fire, in my case.
It was an amazing thing to me. All I needed to do was ask a few obvious
questions, and I found myself called a brainwashed shill of Big Oil. At first I
was hurt, and innocently expressed my hurt and repeated my questions, however
when this only earned me further blastings I became angry, and developed my
ability to blast right back.
It was at this point I learned something about CA. They snipped me, when I did
little more than rave. They were not interested in sinking to that level. (I
actually found other sites where one could blast and get blasted back.
Accuweather’s site was the best, when it came to raving and getting raved at. On
that site a topic such as “rising sea levels” would often degenerate into
furious discussions about religion and whether the Red Sea could really be
parted.)
CA did not snip me merely for disagreeing, as sites such as Real Climate did.
Often I was agreeing, (albeit with foam around my mouth.) Rather they snipped me
for sinking to the level of trolls.
This taught me yet another lesson.
All in all, I feel I owe Steve McIntyre a very great deal. He has remained
amazingly calm in a storm, and has simply stood for truth.
I feel there are times truth deserves a capital “T,” and should be written as
“Truth.” It has a power all its own, for it does not matter if the whole world
calls It a lie, It cannot help but be what it is: “True.”
I pray this power manifests and blesses Steve McIntyre, and protects him from
all the trolls, including the ones in Congress.
0
John Wright
August 11, 2010 2:16 am
Let me add my congratulations; still a long struggle ahead I think, but in good
company.
0
Lady Life Grows
August 11, 2010 11:02 am
Wonderful!
Now maybe we can get them to investigate the HEART of the whole thing–what
happens to terrestrial animals when CO2 or temperatures rise. There are hundreds
to thousands of scientific studies on plants, most of which (not all) show that
more CO2 is beneficial to them, as are generally higher temperatures (in most
cases). Higher CO2 also means plants use LESS water despite faster growth,
because they do not have to open their stomata (“mouths” in their leaves) as
much to get CO2 and hence lose less water through transpiration.
There are some studies about insects and CO2, which are not really the animals
we want. It is birds, mammals and people that concern us. There is almost no
scientific research–at least I have found only a handful of studies, and those
at concentrations above 70 times ambient (and it was still beneficial).
Lack of science leaves the field open to wild guesses. We all learned as tiny
children that the byproducts of digestion, peepee and poopoo, are harmful to us
and flushed away. Then we learned in grade school a tidbit about the carbon
cycle. We learned that plants breathe in carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen
(except at night) and animals including us breathe in oxygen and breathe out
carbon dioxide. So CO (2) must be bad, right?
Actually carbonic acid is a vital component of the blood and its levels must be
exact. Too little is as deadly (or more so) as too much. Also, when it is too
easy to expel CO2 with your breath, you can’t breathe enough to get all the
oxygen you need. So there is an optimal level of carbon dioxide in the air.
Almost all our physiology evolved under conditions of far, far, higher carbon
dioxide than today’s. So it is not surprising that an increase is actually
beneficial (at least according to the very few studies I have found).
Climatology is all very interesting and new, but we have lost sight of the fact
that the real point of the debate is the welfare of life.
Biologists have been asleep at the switch, almost totally suckered into mental
gymnastics about how more growth is really bad and how more plants mean a higher
rate of extinction (I wish I was kidding). They could use a few “M & M’s.”
–Esther Cook
0
wpDiscuz
DONATE TO SUPPORT WUWT
THE MAXIM OF OUR RESOLVE
“Walk toward the fire. Don’t worry about what they call you.” – Andrew Breitbart
| read more
BLOG STATS
* 507,272,356 hits
“…the world’s most viewed climate website”
– Fred Pearce The Climate Files:
The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming
“…invaluable” – Steven F. Hayward, The Weekly Standard
“…changed the world and is one of the most influential resources on global
warming. – Jonathon Moseley, American Thinker
“…flashy (apparently widely distributed)”– Michael E. Mann
Real-time Global Temperature
(updated every 1-2 minutes)
57.8°F / 14.33°C
Deviation: 0.6°F / 0.33°C
Stations processed last hour: 64428
Last station processed: Omaha, United States
For source/info see:
https://temperature.global
FOLLOW WUWT VIA EMAIL
You are following WUWT via email
Email Address
Follow
Join 19K other subscribers
BOOKMARKS
* Climate Scepticism
* Environment & Climate News
* Manhattan Contrarian
* Sea Level Info
ENSO METER
ENSO/SST PAGE
FEED ME
RSS - Posts
RSS - Comments
META
* Register
* Log in
* Entries feed
* Comments feed
* WordPress.org
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Material on this website is copyright © 2006-2022, by Anthony Watts, and may not
be stored or archived separately, rebroadcast, or republished without written
permission. (Miriam O’Brien aka slandering “Sou” from Hotwhopper, that means
you.)
For permission, contact us. See the About>Contact menu under the header.
All rights reserved worldwide.
Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their
respective company or organization.
TOP POSTS & PAGES
* A Thought Experiment; Simplifying the Climate Riddle.
* Scottish battery factory goes bust in fresh blow to UK’s net zero industry
* Whatever happened to the Siberian permafrost "tipping point" from 2005?
* Oregon's Climate Program Overruled
* Fisherman's Association Drops "Climate Deception" Lawsuit
* Emails Show Biden Admin Coordinating with Enviro Group That’s Suing Them
* A Three-University Conspiracy? (Or eight billion supporting fossil fuels)
* U.S. Climate 2023 Year in Review - In one word: NORMAL
* Happy End: Chile Will No Longer Have A Climate Constitution… For Now
* COP 28: Climate Hysteric Peter Kalmus Has the Sads
RECENT POSTS
* SCOTUS Will Hear Challenge to One of EPA’s Most Stringent Proposed Climate
Regs
* Authorities Raid Berlin-Based Radical Leftist Group “Zora”… Leader Tied To
“Fridays For Future”
* A Three-University Conspiracy? (Or eight billion supporting fossil fuels)
* Oregon’s Climate Program Overruled
* Whatever happened to the Siberian permafrost “tipping point” from 2005?
* Emails Show Biden Admin Coordinating with Enviro Group That’s Suing Them
* Fisherman’s Association Drops “Climate Deception” Lawsuit
* Scottish battery factory goes bust in fresh blow to UK’s net zero industry
* A Thought Experiment; Simplifying the Climate Riddle.
* Happy End: Chile Will No Longer Have A Climate Constitution… For Now
* U.S. Climate 2023 Year in Review – In one word: NORMAL
* COP 28: Climate Hysteric Peter Kalmus Has the Sads
* Reason is Right, There is No ‘Climate Cliff’
* Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #580
* ICEBREAKER Wind Dead: Great Lakes Alive
ARCHIVES
Archives Select Month December 2023 (131) November 2023 (186) October 2023
(191) September 2023 (186) August 2023 (194) July 2023 (192) June 2023
(187) May 2023 (187) April 2023 (181) March 2023 (191) February 2023 (171)
January 2023 (192) December 2022 (191) November 2022 (185) October 2022
(192) September 2022 (189) August 2022 (192) July 2022 (193) June 2022
(183) May 2022 (185) April 2022 (181) March 2022 (193) February 2022 (172)
January 2022 (188) December 2021 (188) November 2021 (184) October 2021
(190) September 2021 (180) August 2021 (185) July 2021 (187) June 2021
(185) May 2021 (190) April 2021 (183) March 2021 (190) February 2021 (173)
January 2021 (189) December 2020 (194) November 2020 (184) October 2020
(185) September 2020 (188) August 2020 (197) July 2020 (158) June 2020
(194) May 2020 (196) April 2020 (190) March 2020 (193) February 2020 (189)
January 2020 (195) December 2019 (207) November 2019 (189) October 2019
(199) September 2019 (192) August 2019 (202) July 2019 (200) June 2019
(188) May 2019 (201) April 2019 (201) March 2019 (227) February 2019 (196)
January 2019 (222) December 2018 (232) November 2018 (214) October 2018
(192) September 2018 (180) August 2018 (181) July 2018 (178) June 2018
(193) May 2018 (191) April 2018 (164) March 2018 (185) February 2018 (170)
January 2018 (178) December 2017 (153) November 2017 (176) October 2017
(173) September 2017 (188) August 2017 (218) July 2017 (185) June 2017
(121) May 2017 (131) April 2017 (130) March 2017 (147) February 2017 (125)
January 2017 (149) December 2016 (139) November 2016 (138) October 2016
(171) September 2016 (133) August 2016 (142) July 2016 (138) June 2016
(156) May 2016 (160) April 2016 (163) March 2016 (172) February 2016 (137)
January 2016 (133) December 2015 (158) November 2015 (136) October 2015
(123) September 2015 (129) August 2015 (130) July 2015 (146) June 2015
(144) May 2015 (157) April 2015 (124) March 2015 (126) February 2015 (115)
January 2015 (105) December 2014 (129) November 2014 (136) October 2014
(163) September 2014 (184) August 2014 (190) July 2014 (172) June 2014
(195) May 2014 (216) April 2014 (181) March 2014 (184) February 2014 (164)
January 2014 (202) December 2013 (144) November 2013 (146) October 2013
(147) September 2013 (148) August 2013 (165) July 2013 (174) June 2013
(161) May 2013 (193) April 2013 (171) March 2013 (162) February 2013 (165)
January 2013 (172) December 2012 (126) November 2012 (139) October 2012
(176) September 2012 (151) August 2012 (144) July 2012 (175) June 2012
(179) May 2012 (177) April 2012 (177) March 2012 (189) February 2012 (159)
January 2012 (142) December 2011 (161) November 2011 (168) October 2011
(179) September 2011 (189) August 2011 (190) July 2011 (169) June 2011
(187) May 2011 (176) April 2011 (176) March 2011 (171) February 2011 (183)
January 2011 (193) December 2010 (183) November 2010 (168) October 2010
(191) September 2010 (178) August 2010 (200) July 2010 (188) June 2010
(140) May 2010 (124) April 2010 (122) March 2010 (135) February 2010 (142)
January 2010 (157) December 2009 (168) November 2009 (163) October 2009
(131) September 2009 (106) August 2009 (92) July 2009 (96) June 2009 (93)
May 2009 (89) April 2009 (99) March 2009 (99) February 2009 (60) January
2009 (60) December 2008 (58) November 2008 (45) October 2008 (63) September
2008 (75) August 2008 (77) July 2008 (68) June 2008 (72) May 2008 (54)
April 2008 (54) March 2008 (39) February 2008 (40) January 2008 (31)
December 2007 (27) November 2007 (37) October 2007 (29) September 2007 (17)
August 2007 (31) July 2007 (20) June 2007 (25) May 2007 (31) April 2007
(31) March 2007 (27) February 2007 (24) January 2007 (25) December 2006
(22) November 2006 (11)
CATEGORIES
Categories Select Category 2017 Solar Eclipse 350.org connect the dots 97%
consensus 99% certainty Academic Freedom Adjustments/Corrections Aerosols
Agriculture AGU AGU 2013 AGU 2014 AGU 2015 AGU 2019 AGU16 Air pollution Al Gore
Alarmism Albedo AMO Announcements Antarctic Antarctic Ice Cores Antarctic Ice
Mass Anthropocene Anthropogenic Ocean Warming Arctic ARGO data Astronomy
Atmospheric physics Attribution Bad science Bad science journalism Bengtsson
Climate McCarthyism scandal Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Bias Biodiversity
biofuels Biomass Book Review Cancun Climate Conference Cap-and-trade Carbon
credits Carbon dioxide Carbon Fail Carbon footprint Carbon sequestration Carbon
soot carbon tax Celebrities on AGW censorship CFC’s Chaos and Climate Citizen
science Climate Attribution Climate cash Climate Change Debate Climate
Communications Climate Craziness of the Week Climate data Climate Debate Climate
Delusion Climate Economics Climate FAIL Climate Hypocrisy Climate Lawsuits
Climate Models Climate Myths Climate News Climate News Roundup Climate Politics
Climate Propaganda Climate reconciliation Climate Reference Network climate
refugees Climate Science Climate sensitivity Climate ugliness Climate_change
Climategate Climategate 3.0 ClimateTV Clouds CO2 Coal Cold wave Commentary
Commentary Common sense Consensus COP conferences Copenhagen Climate Conference
Copygate coral reefs Coronavirus Cosmic rays Covid News Cowtan & Way Curious
things Current News Desertification Disaster disinvitation Dr. Patrick Michaels
Drought Durban Climate Conference dust storms Earth Earthquakes Economics of
Climate Change Economy-health Ecoterrorism Education Educational opportunity El
Nino Basics Electric Vehicles Emergence Emergent Climate Phenomena Emissions End
Of Snow Endangered Species Energy Energy Fail ENSO Environment EPA erosion
Everything Climate EVs Experiments Extinction extreme weather Fake News Fakegate
feedbacks Finance flooding fog FOI Forecasting Forests Fossil Fuel Divestment
Fools Fracking Freeman Dyson FUG Fun_stuff Fusion power Gavin Schmidt
Geoengineering Geology Lessons geothermal energy Gergis et al GHCN GISS Glaciers
Global cooling Global Greening Global Temperature Update Global warming Global
Warming in Perspective Global Warming Optimism GLOC Good News Gore-a-thon 2011
Gore-a-thon 2012 Gorefest11 Government funding of science Government idiocy
Graph of the Week Gravity Green Blob Green Mafia Green New Deal Green tech
Greenhouse Effect Greenland ice sheet HADCRUT4 hail Hausfather et al 2017 heat
wave Hiatus in Global Warming History Hits and Misses Holocene How Climate Works
Humor humour hurricanes Hurricanes hydroclimatology Hydropower Ice Ages
Intermittent Wind and Solar IPCC IPCC AR5 leak IPCC AR5 Report IPCC AR6 Ira
Irony It’s Worse Than We Thought! James Hansen John Cook Journalism junk science
Karl et al. 2015 Katowice Conference Land Surface Air Temperature Data Land use
land cover change Landslides Letters To The Editor Lewgate Lewis and Crok
lightning Little Ice Age Local_issues Lower Troposphere Temperature
Lukewarmerism Lunar tides and climate Malthusian Myths Marcott et al proxy paper
Mass Extinctions measurement media MedievalWarmPeriod Meridional Transport
Methane MetOffice Michael E. Mann Mining MJO Modeling modification Monarchs
monsoons More On Series NASA NASA GISS National Climate Assessment Report
Natural CO2 sources natural gas Natural Warming NCADAC NCDC NCEI Net-Zero
Net-Zero News Newsbytes NGOs NOAA NOAA 2 year FOIA documents NOAA ERSST.v4
Pauses Buster Noble Cause Corruption nuclear power Numbers Obama Climate Plan
Obamas War on Energy Obituary Obvious science Ocean acidification Ocean Heat
Content Ocean Temperatures Oceans Oil and Gas Open Thread Opinion Optical
phenonmena Ozone Paleoclimatology Papal Climate Encyclical Paris Climate Accord
PDO Peer review PEOPLE WILL DIE! Permafrost Personal note petroleum Plankton and
other critters Plastic – At Sea Podcasts Polar Amplification Polar Bears Polar
Vortex Polarbeargate Politics Politics and climate change Polls Population
Positive effects of CO2 Post-normal science Presentations Proxies Puzzling
things Quote of The Month Quote of the Week Radiation Radiative Imbalance
Rainfall RCP 8.5 Science Fiction records Recycling Reference Pages Regulation
Renewable energy reproducibility RICO20 Ridiculae Rio+20 Russia Salinity
Satellite Temperature Records Satire Science Science Journalism Science
Journlism Sea Sea ice Sea Ice News Sea level Sea Surface Temperature Snow
snowfall social cost of carbon Solar solar flare solar power solar/climate
connection Southern Annular Mode Space Spaceweather Specific Humidity
Spencer-Braswell and Dessler St. Greta statistics Stephan Lewandowsky Stern
Review Strategic Minerals Stratospheric water vapor Surfacestations paper
Surveys Sustainability Tabloid Climatology TAO/TRITON Buoys Technology
Temperature Temperature Reconstructions Tesla The “Clitanic” aka Spirit of
Mawson The Grid The Rat-hole problem The Skeptic’s Case The Weather Channel The
WUWT Hot Sheet The Yamal Deception thorium power Throwback Thursday Predictions
thunderstorms Tipping Points tornadoes Total Precipitable Water Transportation
Trenberth’s missing heats Trends Tropical Hot spot Tropics Tsunami UHI UKMO
HADCRUT4 Uncategorized Uncertainty United Nations USCRN USGS USHCN & GHCN
Volcanoes Vortex Vulcanism Waste heat Watts et al 2012 Weather Weather
Attribution Weather_stations Wiki Wars Wildfires Willis Autobiography wind power
WUWT-TV
SEA ICE PAGE
SOLAR IMAGES & DATA PAGE
*
Copyright © All rights reserved
wpDiscuz
Insert
Loading Comments...
You must be logged in to post a comment.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you
continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice
is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read
website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case! Cookie Policy
%d