Inhofe Questioned About Manipulating Climate Polling Data
"Did Jim Inhofe Manipulate Poll Data On Climate Change Policy?" asks Eric Kleefeld today at Talking Points Memo. Kleefeld questions whether Inhofe falsely represented polling data on American public opinion about climate policy.
Following his bizarre trip to Copenhagen, Inhofe penned an op-ed in USA Today earlier this week arguing that "The bottom line is this: The American people have caught on to the significant flaws of cap-and-trade policy," and citing a Washington Post poll which he alleged proved his point that "the American public is growing restless with policies that would put more Americans out of jobs and raise the cost of energy."
But Kleefeld takes issue with Inhofe's interpretation of the poll. "The problem is this: The poll doesn't say that people are against policies that would raise the cost of energy -- in fact, it says quite the opposite," he writes.
The Washington Post poll results clearly contradict Inhofe's spin.
The Post confirms that "majorities of Americans remain supportive of such regulations even if they increased monthly bills, so long as they lower greenhouse gas levels. If energy bills jumped $10 a month, 60 percent back new limits; at $25 a month, it's 55 percent."
Read more at Talking Points Memo.
With an appendix for Marc Morano.
Have a good Christmas.
What about Mark Leggings ?
Anyways merry Christmas to you all!!
Affordable Art
..... sad to say, but NO, Pachauri seems to be a crook. Unfortunately, UN's IPCC head of science, and co-winner with Al Gore, seems to be an alleged CROOK who used his share of the Nobel Prize monies as seed money to become filthy rich by benefiting from insider information for C trading, and for investing in "green" companies around the globe. Crookedness and fraudulent behaviour is running rampant in the pro-global warming community.
I think you've managed to confuse yourself Amabo. Denialists are the "pro-global warming community."
This entire site is run by people who seem to be delighted that there is an issue to "fight" -- global warming or AGW; hence they are pro- the global warming issue. Some of us do not think there is an issue, and the fraudsters, also known the "pro-global warming" community as opposed to "anti-global warming" people like myself, who believe global warming, or AGW, is NOT an issue. I suppose I could call those who love to hate the AGW as "True-believers", or invent some really derogatory terms like "trolls", or "bottom feeders" but these have been taken, right?
For someone to actually suggest that environmentalists and scientists "delight" in the specter of global ecological collapse is beyond stupid. It is pathological.
[It should have been posted immediately above Amabo's comment.]
Why has the warmist camp not picked up the Mann hockey stick errors, the Briffa errors, etc etc..
If they were interested in keeping the earth from global ecological collapse they would be fighting hard for top notch, accurate, verifyable science, to make sure they had the story right.
Nope.. any old scare story based on psudosciencepeercontrolledwarmistdogma is fine by them. Climategate is just business as usual!
Thus it is a reasonable assumption to make that the warmists "delight" in the specter of global collapse. Witness the spectacle of Mugabe and Chevez being lauded in Copenhagen. Sick.
There is no one who wants higher energy costs for any reason. The wealthy can afford any price, but the other 95% choose between food, energy, mortgage etc.
Polls never tell the whole story and are most often rigged.
Cold Weather Safety
http://www.vdh.state.va.us/weather/ColdWeatherSafety.htm
Merry Christmas and be safe
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/wrap_fwo.pl?IDW30000.txt
OKLAHOMA CITY — A fierce Christmas storm dumped more snow and ice across the nation's midsection Friday after stranding travelers as highways and airports closed and leaving many to celebrate the holiday just where they were.
and your buddies could distinguish between weather and climate.
Or even fantasy and reality.
how about politics and science?
The trouble - the real trouble - is that science has become mixed up with politics and you just can't trust politics ever.
The scientists really need to be apolitcal and they need to be seen to be apolitical otherwise public trust starts to evaporate.
For example Michael Mann.
I'm sure it would have been difficult for Michael Mann to hold back from taking a potshot at Sarah Palin - after all - she started it. But when Mr. Mann did that - he entered more surely into the political arena.
He becomes more viewed as a politically motivated person rather than purely a scientist and gives up a bit of his special status.
The problem is rightwingers who think that politics must dominate everything and who insist that facts be warped to suit their delusional beliefs about how the world works. The effect of their dishonesty and stupidity will be to drive scientists into more leftwing political views.
You want scientist to be apolitical? Quit attacking them. But it's probably too late. You are forcing them to choose sides and they will choose the reality-based side.
..... au contraire, nothing delusional, or dishonest, or stupid in this guy's [yes, my] thinking. Lots of dishonesty happening in the AGW movement, though -- like Cooked books to get desired data; like the recent revelation that the Head UN science guy, Rajendra K. Pachauri, Ph.D. (Economics) may be a crook who has been caught enriching himself obscenely / financially from insider information as he invests in C trading and in green companies, worldwide. (One wonders how the Nobel Committee feels now about awarding their 2009 prestigious Nobel Prize to Gore / Pachauri). Admit it, the global warming, leftists seem to be rotten to the core. I don't think there is anything trustworthy coming from the people who get apoplectic about good, clean, ecologically essential, SCARCE non-polluting CO2 gas, which comprises less than 0.04% CO2 in air, worldwide at sea level). By the way, the term "LEFTIST" is appropriate because the real (but almost never openly stated) reason for blaming global warming on CO2 gas is that petroleum, coal and other sources of CO2 (upon combustion of the organic substances) can be taxed. Taxed, why? -- So that the governments of the so-called developed countries can redistribute their wealth to the third-world, poor nations... often run by unscrupulous leftist potentates, like Mugabe and Hugo Chavez. Not pretty, is it, but people like VJ must have it thrown in their faces now and then. If they think about it all the way through, they might not want to support the leftist science, and scientists, either!
Why do denialists think that the most rambling incoherent post wins?
you must have missed it vj but there were these e-mails, see, and they showed how the whole thing was bs. you should read up more. kind of like this article, see, that you guys (i guess the "left") are writing about inhofe hiding the decline in support o.....wait ,s orry , was going to write about something important but this is obviously a more pressing issue...WAKE THE EFFFF UP. its a SCAM.
so now we need to come up with another excuse for glorious global communism?
I thought we had it nailed with this anthropogenic stuff, plus I went to all the trouble of learning how to spell anthropogenic.
Whatever the next global emergency is, lets try to keep it to 2 syllables or less.
how many syllables in O2 depletion?
The left and right are both reality based. They are simply different models for governing.
On the Left - The Soviet Union was very successful for a good long time and in fact many Russian citizens want to to return to the good old days.
China on the far left is not tackling emissions, but I suppose they could change directions in a hurry if they wanted to. They don't have to answer to the people in the way the US government does.
A powerful government running the show without oppposition seems to be just the thing to tackle CO2 emissions.
On the Right - The US was also very successful for a good long time. However, limited government might not be the best way to tackle CO2 emissions. People have too much personal power and do what they want. (which often involves some sort of combustion)
So - is the CO2 problem big enough to hand over greater authority to government?
Just a little leftism won't get it done. If you want to change the world, full on communism is your best bet.
No, what has happened now is that rightwingers are moving farther and farther away from reality and they are making stupid destructive decisions. They are trying to manufacture their own reality and they cannot do it. The glaciers are melting, the globe is getting warmer, the world is changing and we are going to have to change with it.
ignore. It posted twice for some reason.
Whether human beings like it or not the glaciers in questions, the glaciers we all hate to see disappear, these glaciers are the remnants of the last ice age. They would melt with or without an increase in CO2 content. AGW is a foolish notion. Plants are keeping CO2 content of air LOW. Be reasonable for once, VJ.
"If you want to change the world, full on communism is your best bet." Thanks Rick, I always wondered how denialists arrived at the conclusion that climatology is really a communist plot to take over the world.
I know the difference but I also know it drives you climate jerks crazy when weather is equated with climate. FYI that is how most people see this issue .. through their weather ... and that helps a lot wouldn't you say?
But consider this ... climate is what we want ... weather is what we get.
Cheers,
It's probably too late for Inhofe but NASA's Dr. James Hansen* has begun work on a helpful website to overview and update climate science; called "Updating the Climate Science, What Path is the Real World Following?" the site can be found at:
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/
From the website intro: "Our aim is to help people understand global climate change — and how the factors that drive climate are changing. ... The stability of climate that existed while civilization developed will not continue during the next several decades — that much is already clear. But whether climate change is moderate — something humans and most species can adjust to — or whether climate change accelerates and spins out of control, with devastating consequences for future generations — that depends.... Construction of this web site is just beginning."
The 'Temperature of Science' pdf found on the website landing page and published by Dr. Hansen in mid-December has many instructional graphs and figs, too.
* Dr. James Hansen is the chief climate scientist at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and is the man who originally raised the alarm on global warming in 1988 in an appearance before congress. He is also the keeper of the most often cited climate data.
great read thanks for the post, This is very informative! i like your post. Thanks...
http://ezinearticles.com/?Bowtrol-Colon-Cleanse-Review---Does-Bowtrol-Cleanse-Work?&id=2926555
The colon cleanse comment gets a plus rating and I get a minus 9 or something?
so what you're saying is that the colon cleanse spam is better than my comment? ... I see.
Perhaps we can call on Bruce to bring us more of those great colon cleanse based comments - as soon as he gets back from the washroom.
i thank google to bring me here and very thanks to you for the great article
its very helpful to me
happy new year
عرب سوفت http://3arabsoft.com/forum/
Satellite measurements show our quiet sun is cooling the upper thermosphere:
"From NASA News. New measurements from a NASA satellite show a dramatic cooling in the upper atmosphere that correlates with the declining phase of the current solar cycle. For the first time, researchers can show a timely link between the Sun and the climate of Earth’s thermosphere, the region above 100 km, an essential step in making accurate predictions of climate change in the high atmosphere."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/26/satellite-measurements-prove-our-quiet-sun-is-cooling-the-upper-thermosphere/
"While this warming has no implications for climate change in the troposphere, a fundamental prediction of climate change theory is that the upper atmosphere will cool in response to increasing carbon dioxide. As the atmosphere cools the density will decrease, which ultimately may impact satellite operations through decreased drag over time."
Lets see, AGW posits that CO2 increases will cause warming. But warming is going sideways, while CO2 keeps going up. On the other hand, there is recorded reductions in UV from the sun, and cooling in the troposphere. Less solar activity predicts a cooler earth.. bingo! The cosmic ray theory hold up.
The cosmic ray theory keeps racking up the score, while AGW is dubious at best, and failing spectacularly re ice core CO2 following temperature, current cool period, excessive OLR, and no troposphere hot spot over the equator.
game, set, match!!
"game, set, match!!" You're the man Cosmic Ed!
I find it amazing that you people think you know all about how the climate works. I find it also amazing that AGW can predict anything and everything the climate must do.
That's why it's not science, but a faith.
You seem upset that somebody actually read the link you posted.
Oh. well. At least you are being consistent to the position you have adopted. I suppose that we should be grateful for small mercies.
Well, it has been around for more than 10 years, and has passed all challenges with flying colours..
from Henrik Svensmark’s theory of low cloud formation:
"Here is prima facie evidence for suspecting
that much of the warming of the world during
the 20th century was due to a reduction in
cosmic rays and in low-cloud cover. But distinguishing
between coincidence and causal action
has always been a problem in climate science.
The case for anthropogenic climate change
during the 20th century rests primarily on the
fact that concentrations of carbon dioxide and
other greenhouse gases increased and so did
global temperatures. Attempts to show that certain
details in the climatic record confirm the
greenhouse forcing (e.g. Mitchell et al. 2001)
have been less than conclusive. By contrast, the
hypothesis that changes in cloudiness obedient
to cosmic rays help to force climate change predicts
a distinctive signal that is in fact very easily
observed"
Seems to me the AGW hypothisis was dead long before Climategate!!
It is a peer reviewed paper.. I recommend a thorough reading:
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/cosmoclimatology.svensmark.pdf
Where's the link for downloading his data and code?
Henrik Svensmark, Director, Center for Sun-Climate
Research in the Danish National Space Center,
Copenhagen, Denmark
hsv@spacecenter.dk.
I am sure he will send you a URL to the entire article, data and code. Fill your boots. Let us know what you find that you might object to.
The New Zealand Climate "Science Coalition" are the Kiwi tinfoil brigade that fabricated a bullshit temperature record controversy last month. "Peer reviewed paper"? If you can say that with a straight face you must be delusional.
Read about it here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co.php
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/henrik-svensmark
Quite a diatrabe.. why not present the data and critique up front instead of a long winded attack.. his paper is not at the site
My 2003‐article can be downloaded from the link:
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Solar‐ClimateLAUTPREPRINT.pdf
Since you posted this.. can you post a URL that works?
and Laut's paper was there as well.
Stick a fork in it -- it's done.
To see how easy it was to debunk, point your browser at: www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
The debunking starts about 42 minutes into the video.
The only people still pushing the cosmic-ray theory are kooks and cranks.
Hi Keith (BRIFFA),
Okay, today. Promise! Now something to ask from you. Actually somewhat important too. I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. They use your Tornetrask recon as the main whipping boy. I have a file that you gave me in 1993 that comes from your 1992 paper. Below is part of that file. Is this the right one? Also, is it possible to resurrect the column headings? I would like to play with it in an effort to refute their claims. If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. It is also an ugly paper to review because it is rather mathematical, with a lot of Box-Jenkins stuff in it. It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically, but it suffers from the classic problem of pointing out theoretical deficiencies, without showing that their improved inverse regression method is actually better in a practical sense. So they do lots of monte carlo stuff that shows the superiority of their method and the deficiencies of our way of doing things, but NEVER actually show how their method would change the Tornetrask reconstruction from what you produced. Your assistance here is greatly appreciated. Otherwise, I will let Tornetrask sink into the melting permafrost of northern Sweden (just kidding of course).
Cheers,
Ed (COOK)
Don't like the truth?
Simple, if you are an IPCC climate "Scientist", bury it.
just actually read what it says.
Physicist Luboš Motl of The Reference Frame demonstrates how easy it is to show that there is: No statistically significant warming since 1995
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/26/no-statistically-significant-warming-since-1995-a-quick-mathematical-proof/