White House says leaked email story "silly" - the science is clear

According to an AFP story out today, the Obama White House has dismissed as “silly” the idea that climate science is in jeopardy over the Climate Research Unit leaked emails.

“I think everybody is clear on the science,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters.

“I think scientists are clear on the science. I think many on Capitol Hill are clear on the science. I think that this notion that there is some debate … on the science is kind of silly.”

Of course it is, but it hasn’t stopped Republicans, their friends in the free-market think tanks and Fox News from trying to make this minor controversy into some kind of worldwide conspiracy.

I wonder if 100 years from now, the textbooks will talk about how the 21st century equivalent of the flat-earth society that tried and failed to keep the human-race stuck on fossil fuels?

If so, here’s a great photo of the Head Director of the Flat Earth Society that they could include on the cover:


That’s very well said. Not to mention very funny.
Near the end there’s a link to the “pothole of ignorance.”Put down any drinks, food etc. before you read this. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/4000.htm

When your opponent starts to throw insults you know you have won. Poeple only throw insuls when they cannot deal with the evidence you presnt. Otherwise, if they had any evidence they would be civil and just present it. But instead these leftists/socialists only know how to insult.

Guess these physicists are a little unnerving to you? It should. Your boat is sinking.

false allegations last night on CNN by Steve McIntyre (who is considered a habitual liar) did that very same thing. Steve McIntyre claimed that CRU covered up and withheld the divergent tree problem from the IPPC.
Considering one of the first published papers on the divergence problem was in June 1995 and has been on subsequent Journal publications. Also in the IPPC third assessment mentions it (a little odd how they knew about something they didn’t know about ) also noticed that they openly state that nonclimatic growth trends in trees should be removed. Page 131 (CH-2)

They’re still covering it up in the sense that they’re saying it’s not a problem. Tree ring widths make lousy temperature proxies. Until they say that, they’re covering.


“…Thus climate reconstructions based entirely on tree-ring data are susceptible to several sources of contamination or non-stationarity of response. For these reasons, investigators have increasingly found tree-ring data most useful when supplemented by other types of proxy information in “multi-proxy” estimates of past temperature change (Overpeck et al., 1997; Jones et al., 1998; Mann et al., 1998; 1999; 2000a; 2000b; Crowley and Lowery, 2000).”

Hey Rick you forgot your role as tribune of the people ignorant of the science (see below). Now you suddenly presume to know about the technical intricacies of treering proxies.

yeah - getting precise temperatures out of thousand year old tree rings seems as dumb as eating mud pies. It doesn’t matter how closely you examine the mud, it still tastes the same. Show me how you get precise temperatures out of tree rings in modern times first.

Here’s what you do - plant a tree and place a thermometer next to it. Keep good records for 50 years, then have someone else chop down the tree and do a blind analysis of 50 years of temperature.

See whether it perfectly matches or doesn’t.

Let me save you 50 years - you’ll end up with nothing at all, because tree growth isn’t a simple temperature question. Soil nutrient changes and moisture changes are known unknowns and there are also unknown unknowns.

They were commenting on the sound of the goalposts being moved it probably hurt their ears that is why they gave it a -12. But thanks for showing an example of cognitive dissonance.

My apologies he lied twice in the same breath IPPC and the WMO. You can now watch the video of him lying and directly check the IPPC report above.

I found the video link of this lie of all places at WATTSUPWITHTHAT.COM the irony!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oxFx41nE1c&feature=player_embedded#

It’s still no more than an assumption that varying a trace gas can affect the climate. There are so many poorly understood climactic drivers/influences (solar output, cosmic radiation, cloud effects, ocean and air currents etc.) that the focus on a trace gas concentration as a major controlling mechanism for climate is to say the least primitive. Governments need cash and taxing carbon is in their sights as a source.

That much ammonia in the air will kill you fast.

Carbon dioxide is significant in providing a climate that is balmier than the moon. It would not be good to get rid of this “trace gas” entirely. We would freeze.

We have added 40 percent more CO2 to the air by burning fossil fuel. We depend on the present climate and we are changing it drastically.

NO, since CO2 is a minor GHG, water vapour is the biggest.

But we would starve to death since CO2 is essential for planet growth.

“We have added 40 percent more CO2 to the air by burning fossil fuel.”

So what? We are still at the LOWEST level of atmospheric CO2 in geological history. Even as recently as 35myo the level was occillating between 500 and 1300ppm. http://courses.eas.ualberta.ca/eas570/nature08447.pdf

“We depend on the present climate and we are changing it drastically.”

How so, show me a specific example of how we are changing the climate and how it is linked to CO2 emissions.

A single page paid ad by a professional geologist. It is not in the online version but you can download it here:


The Scam of Our Lifetime
Global Warming Caused by Human-made CO2?
By: Bill Bell

Think about the human-made CO2 statement. That’s already comical. But even Adolf Hitler is mentioned in this writeup. Otherwise the same old same old.

In a letter in yesterday’s Herald, another writer compared Lorne Gunter to Galileo Galilei, and hailed Michael Crichton as his anti-global warming hero. Said my wife (who has no clue of or any interest in this debate): what is wrong with these people?

I suppose they aren’t as easily fooled as you, a couple of slick graphs and a boom lift and some people will buy anything.

The rest of us require a little more.

If you want critical scientific information (without any politics), why dont you go to realclimate.org? Another excellent source is the skeptical science blog.

I’m starting to think the catastrophic agw future team is shooting themselves in the foot by trying too hard. By going on the attack against skeptics they get the backlash.

I read something today that was quite convincing about going the “fix the climate” route - quite convincing because it didn’t try to prove or even defend the science and yet I come out of it thinking that this “fix the climate” concept can actually make sense.

It probably caught me off guard because it was linked by a skeptic and it said something positive about Dick Cheney and it concluded by recommending the “fix the climate” route.

very sneaky