Posts by Gerald Wilhite 4 publicly visible posts • joined 6 Dec 2012
In a privately owned corporation, whether it is financed by stock sold to the public or financed by closely held private stock, your employment agreement typically provides that the company has access to all of the email correspondence you send and receive on company time.
In a publicly owned corporation or quasi-public institution, there is no rational reason for it being excluded fro this expectation.
Boris, I'm not a scientist, just a US citizen with a life-long fascination with science. Even so, I have to take issue with the last phrase of your second sentence --- 'temp appears to have gone up'. Technically you are right. Available surface data for land and seas shows that temperature is going up slightly, about 0.012°C/year. (I confess that at this point I am very skeptical about the claim that satellite instrumentation can reliably produce data accurate to three decimal places.)
Please see: http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/coverage2013/background.html#metoffice.
This website takes you to a discussion paper by Dr. Kevin Cowtan and Dr. Robert Way, the authors of a recent paper entitled "Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature record". The paper was published in the latest Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society.
In the discussion paper, please go to the "Did the Met Office get it wrong?" section. The author's best land and sea temperature reconstruction, including the satellite data, claims that the temperature trend since 1997 is 0.119°C/decade, or about 1.19°C/century. This low trend rate has understandably been interpreted by the some of the media and some scientists as 'The Pause'.
The authors condition their findings by stating their opinion that 16 years is not enough time to constitute a trend that should be interpreted as falsification of AGW. Recall that the Climategate II emails revealed that Dr. Phil Jones, the Director of Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, expressed great concern about the reaction of his peers if the trend of 'The Pause' exceeded 15 years. Presumably Jones' concern was falsification. We are about to begin the 17th year of the trend.
When 'The Pause' temperature trend is analyzed in relation to the Mauna Loa CO2 data showing CO2 emissions going up about 12% during the same period, many scientists draw the practical conclusion that the prime prediction of the CO2 version of AGW is wrong. In other words, the hypothesis is seriously threatened with falsification, if not already falsified.
Remember that the goal of the UN-IPCC is to not to determine what causes global warming. The IPCC's goal is very limited. It is restricted to determining the extent that humanity's CO2 emissions impact climate change. in 2005 Jones knew there had already been a 7yr pause when he wrote:
Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005: “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has, but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….” Then in 2009, 12 years into 'The Pause', he wrote:
Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009: ”Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.”
Remember also that the agenda imposed on the IPCC by the World Meteorological Organization accepts AGW as carved-in-stone gospel. The theory is assumed to apply to all of the science the IPCC process reviews, and the AGW theory is used as the foundation for constructing all of the GCMs. Remember also that the IPCC heavily promotes the notion that renewables will become economically viable if some form of carbon taxation is used significantly increase the consumer cost of hydrocarbon fuel.
Any public discussion questioning the AGW hypothesis was extremely politically incorrect at Warsaw, but you can bet it was the subject of heated private discussions. The fact is, IMHO, that this fundamental uncertainty was the reason nothing was accomplished.
Unfortunately AGW is the foundation for all of the IPCC's work. At this point, it is a lousy basis for long range public policy implementation plans. Hundreds of trillions of tax dollars are at stake. In my lay opinion, an environmental insurance policy for my grandkids based on the IPCC's work would be a downright stupid investment. We can do better ... a lot better.
.
Am I dreaming? Am I falling down, down, down somebody's rabbit hole. The author of almost every story I read about climate change -- and almost every reader who comments --- makes no mention of the confirmed fact that global warming stopped in 1997. Even IPCC Chairman Pachauri confirms it. Warming may start up again in 20 or 30 years, but for now it is clear that there has been no global warming for almost two decades. Meanwhile, man-made CO2 emissions have increased 8%, which pretty much trashes the whole CO2 driven AGW hypothesis.
So why do I keep seeing stories like this? Why are we pretending that we are still experiencing a relentless global warming? Mr. Myslewski, please help me understand what is going on here. Am I crazy? It's hard for me to believe that you are intentionally writing make-believe articles that delude your audience. What am I missing?
Two bits of poorly reported knowledge you should consider:
1. NO INCREASE IN RATES OF HISTORIC SEA LEVEL RISE --- Despite the AGW driven propaganda that you read in the MSM, there has been no increase in the historic rate of sea level increase --- 8" per century, during a century with significant increase of atmospheric CO2. NOAA officially admits this in a just released report. Toward the end of the report you will find this sentence: "The lowest sea level change scenario (8 inch rise) is based on historic rates of observed sea level change. See: " http://www.cpo.noaa.gov/reports/sealevel/
2. NO GLOBAL WARMING FOR 16 YEARS --- Despite the AGW driven pre-COP18 propaganda that you read in the MSM, there has been no global warming for the past 16 years. Statistically, that is a long enough period to signal a climate change to climate scientists. It was the UK MET Office, the keeper of the gold stand temperature data bases, that shocked everyone with the recent report confirming the 16 year lack of global warming. For an excellent article with many links to original data and studies, see: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html#ixzz29E78OR9H
3. THE AGW HYPOTHESIS HAS BEEN FALSIFIED -- Any way you cut it, the UK MET report on flatlined global warming throws the CO2-driven AGW hypothesis in the scientific trash can. CO2 has gone up significantly during the past 16 years yet global temperatures have flat-lined. That is a direct contradiction of the primary prediction of the hypothesis. You can make up your own mind as to why this has not been more widely reported in the MSM.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
