GOP Rips Plan for Climate Office

obama-200‘Propaganda,’ a lawmaker says

By Ben Wolfgang

House Republicans charged Wednesday that the Obama administration is aiming to establish a “propaganda office” for Democratic initiatives on global warming through a proposal to consolidate operations in a new “climate service” office within the Commerce Department

Tensions boiled over at a congressional hearing as officials of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) defended the consolidation plan contained in President Obama’s fiscal 2012 budget and denied having any ulterior motive.

NOAA hopes to move more than 50 percent of its resources into the new climate service department, which it says will serve as the central clearinghouse for farmers, local governments, the military and academics seeking information on climate trends.

But a number of GOP lawmakers, who have staunchly opposed the administration’s climate and energy policies in the past, challenged NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco at a hearing of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee.

Read the rest at the Washington Times.

137 Responses to GOP Rips Plan for Climate Office

  1. paul wenum June 23, 2011 at 8:30 pm #

    Nothing will change and it is getting worse. Last evenings speech by Obama regarding getting our soldiers back he mentioned the economy and clean cars, air et al blah, blah, blah. His agenda is well known and will never change and will not assist our economy. Also, tapping into our strategic reserves really ticked me off, however others have done it in the past. (2 days worth of oil) Cap N Trade along with a more left wing liberal EPA is a coming! Trust me. I might be stupid looking but I, as others, can see through their smoke screen. Can hardly wait for November, 2012. Hopefully nothing is enacted before that cannot be rescinded.

  2. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 24, 2011 at 5:26 am #

    I guess the answer to every problem, real or imagined, ls more govt. beaurocracy. No surprises here folks.

    • Rob N. Hood June 30, 2011 at 6:43 pm #

      Old tired cliche.

  3. Rob N. Hood June 24, 2011 at 1:58 pm #

    What is the “smoke screen” for?

  4. paul wenum June 24, 2011 at 10:48 pm #

    Your right Neil, nothing surprises me anymore.

  5. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 26, 2011 at 5:37 am #

    I posted this previously but it has been updated. The first link is the graph. For me this is evidence that shows without a doubt that everything that I ever asserted about AGW theory is true and correct, and that observed data is showing that we are nowhere near the predictions by the IPCC. This is not “game changing”. This is “game over”.
    http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/directcomparison.png
    “The blue lines are HADCrut and the green line is UAH. Since 2000 there has been an apparent divergence of the data from the model predictions, and the data now lie below the “Commitment” curve which assumed that CO2 emissions were frozen at 2000 values.”
    http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=2277

  6. paul wenum June 26, 2011 at 7:46 pm #

    Thanks Neil. Why don’t we ever read, see this in the media? I think we know the answer but had it to be asked again, again and again..

  7. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 26, 2011 at 8:30 pm #

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/06/more-evidence-that-global-warming-is-a-false-alarm-a-model-simulation-of-the-last-40-years-of-deep-ocean-warming/
    “It appears that the vertical profile of ocean warming could be a key ingredient in getting a better idea of how sensitive the climate system is to our greenhouse gas emissions. The results here suggests the warming has been considerably weaker than what would be expected for a sensitive climate system.

    The sensitivity number I estimate — 1.3 deg. C — arguably puts future warming in the realm of “eh, who cares?”

    It will be interesting to see how the next IPCC report, now in the early stages of preparation, explains away the increasing discrepancies between their climate models and the observations. Since IPCC outcomes are ultimately driven by desired governmental policies and politicians, rather than science, I’m sure the wordsmithing (and figuresmithing) will be artfully done.”

  8. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 27, 2011 at 5:45 am #

    http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2011/06/deep-snow-delaying-opening-sunrise-area-mount-rainier-national-park8356
    Too much snow will keep the Sunrise area in Mount Rainier National Park closed through the Fourth of July weekend and until at least July 8, according to park officials. Also, the White River Campground won’t open until July 1.

    As the accompanying photos show, there really is a lot of snow still waiting to melt away at Sunrise. (See original source for photo.)

    According to a park news release, road crews, “using bulldozers and a rotary snow blower,” have been working every daily to clear snow from the road leading to Sunrise. “Once access is available, additional park and Washington Conservation Corps crews will be brought into the area to shovel out buildings and activate the power and water systems,” the release added.

    Since July 1, 2010, a total of 907 inches of snow have fallen at Paradise. The record for the park is 1,122 of snowfall during the 1971-72 winter season. Cool and wet temperatures have persisted into June, delaying snow melt in the upper elevations and slowing snow removal operations that began in March. Washington State Department of Transportation road crews have faced similar deep snow conditions on Highway 410, delaying the opening of Chinook Pass on the east side of the park. WSDOT’s projected opening for Chinook Pass is June 23 at 10:00 a.m.

    Persistent snow conditions will also delay the opening of the White River Campground until July 1. The road to the campground is open and accessible. Mowich Road opening operations will be delayed until snow removal at Paradise and Sunrise are completed. All other park roads and areas are open. Travelers are advised to check the park’s website prior to a visit to get updated information on road and trail conditions, services and activities. Mount Rainier National Park’s website is at: http://www.nps.gov/mora.

  9. Jerk A. Knot June 27, 2011 at 10:42 am #

    Thanks Neil…. I went thru the National Parks Traveler and saw where a bloger posted a bunch of links to a bunch of charts. I was suspect of most of them. I really wnat to check their science. I do believe thay are more accurate then DR H’s HOCKY STICK… lol

    I also liked the link that led to PDF with famous quotes about polar ice melting and I figured out who Rob is… I am not saying who I will leave that up to you to pick one..lol….. Keep it up Neil Facts are a stubborn thing…..

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 27, 2011 at 5:11 pm #

      Which link is the one of which you speak? I didn’t look at everything there so I don’t know which link you are talking about.

  10. Jerk A. Knot June 28, 2011 at 8:10 am #

    There is a blog at the bottom of the page that lists numerous links. This is the specific one I am referencing.

    Psychopathy: http://oi52.tinypic.com/1zqu71i.jpg

    I list this as scarcasum Rob so dont get all upset.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 28, 2011 at 9:00 pm #

      You know I don’t like RNH much but I don’t think I would bunch him in with any of those creeps. Manson, Bin Laden, the Unibomber, and that fool Lee the Discovery channel hostage taker? Come on JAK, thats going a bit too far I think. I know you say it in jest, but I gotta say that’s a little below the belt.

  11. Rob N. Hood June 28, 2011 at 8:57 am #

    You are too kind. No response to my question? Why?

    • Jerk A. Knot June 28, 2011 at 10:28 am #

      Rob,
      The answer to “why” is easy. Your question was to Paul not to me. I think Paul is capable to answer for himself. He probably sees your question as I see it. I see it as one that will not serve the discussion. As I have stated here before I believe that AGW is being used by the left to advance there policies. In saying that I do not begrudge the use of facts to advance ones social or political views. What I do begrudge is when a person or group uses false and fabricated facts to further their ambitions or the groups agenda. I don’t care if they are left or right. With that being said I have found the Conservative Right to have more accurate facts and that in general they will not tolerate those within there midst that distort the truth. Oh I know you are about to scream “Bush lied, and people died” at the top of your voice. Remember Kerry, Clinton, Byrd, and Frank all had access to the exact same raw intelligence that Bush used and they all thought the same thing. So save your breath and look at what we are talking about. Global Warming, Specifically AGW, it the main supporting scientific data that is pushing Cap and Trade forward. I think we are all of one accord here that AGW has no substance. Its claims are invalid and it lacks substance. Yet it is still thrown out there and obscures the argument against Cap and Trade. Thus it is like a smoke screen. AGW is being used to support the global construct of World Government. I am not a conspiracy theorist. A theory can not be proved. I can prove that there are people that want what the U.S. has and will use any means they can to get it. The major efforts they will use can be summed up by the acronym DIME. Diplomatic, Information, Military, Economic. The left has control of the MSM and wants thru the Fairness Doctrine to control the “new media” in total. That is the “I”. Diplomatic, treaties like the new START, Kyoto, and Cap and Trade bargain our sovereignty away. Military, We slash and burn our defense budget to the bare bone and we won’t even be able to stop Greenland from invading. (BTW Greenland doesn’t even have a standing Army) The “E”, all I have to say is China owns us right now and the left wants to borrow more from them and drive our $ down. (Stupid slap for them) But that is ok because it gets us to where thy want us. A Socialist/Communist country.
      So Robbie Boy take your left wing, anti American, Class warfare, lying AGW and stick it where the sun don’t shine. Move to Greece and enjoy the good life of a Socialist.

      • Rob N. Hood June 29, 2011 at 9:06 am #

        I was asking Paul, of course. Sheesh. Plus many of Paul’s questions to me would qualify as “not serving the discussion.” Why do you all never tire of being hypocritical? And you say you don’t care it it’s left or right bends facts, but to date you have not proven that in any way. Nor, I suspect, will you. Especially since it is the Right that does so far more than the Left ever did or does. But that speaks to being able to think and perceive things logically and rationally, something which many people have difficulty in doing. And the Left is not anti-American or the side who engages in class warfare. Just the opposite in fact. But you and yours see reality in a very skewed manner, and always will. As far as blaming others for Bush’s follies, yes I blame them too. I’ve been much more critical of the Left that you have ever been or will be of the Right. But Bush was Prez and a very powerful one at that (w/Cheney). The buck stops there- or should.

        • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 29, 2011 at 9:41 am #

          Is you calling President Obama a Conservative being critical of the Left?

          • Rob N. Hood June 29, 2011 at 2:01 pm #

            Huh? Have no idea what your question is. Is you trying to make a point?

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 29, 2011 at 7:18 pm #

            Are you trying to say that my use of “is you” is not proper English? Read it again. It is in proper form.

          • Rob N. Hood June 30, 2011 at 7:47 am #

            Ok, Neil, as usual you’re the expert on all things, including English I guess. And to answer the question- yes, being critical of Obama as I am is being critical of the Left. Because he represents the leader of the Left at this time.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD July 1, 2011 at 5:12 pm #

            Huh? I thought you had no idea what my question was. I guess you did have an idea of what my question was. Yet you said you had no idea what my question was anyway. As far as my question, I think it is interesting that you have criticised Obama as being a too much like a Republican. Is that really criticising the Left then? It’s a good question I think.

        • Jerk A. Knot June 29, 2011 at 2:31 pm #

          Oh there is that logic and reason again that you keep telling us we don’t have. I alo don’t think you know what the word hyporcite means. I have always tried to answer your questions and if I ever see Paul or Neil elude your question I will encourage them to answer it. I am also true to the Consertive cause here and everywhere I go. I have admitted that Bush made mistakes. BUT I am trying to live in the here and now and deal with the current issues. Even in this post you go back to Bush. Well he is gone and has no power now. The current Gov’t is dealing with the global and national issues now. They are about 1/2 way thru the 3rd year and they haven’t made a dent in any one problem. AND they had 100% control the 2 most powerful Branches of our Gov’t. Bush, Chainey, and The Repubs…. could do nothing to stop them. But they still did nothing but pass in 2 years 4 times the spending of the prior administration 8 full years. Unemployment is still over 9%, Gitmo is still open, we are still in Iraq and AFG. Bush might have driven the car into the ditch but the current powers to be are spending BIG $$$ to pull it out into the path of a fleet of speeding semi-trucks. Pushing for CAP and TRADE and clasifying CO2 as a polentant is just one of the trucks in the convoy. Why is it that your superior intelect cant see it!!!! Are you brain washed???? I think so. I put about 10 great points in my last point that left the dore open for logical discussion and again all you have is calling names and spewing unsupported propaganda. For some reason I get the feeing you probably only have acess to a computer for about an hour a day…. That has to be the reason you don’t do any research.

          • Rob N. Hood June 30, 2011 at 7:52 am #

            Oh, so now you want to have a real discussion…? Now that I have given up on it? That’s convenient.

          • Rob N. Hood July 12, 2011 at 2:40 pm #

            Neil as usual your response to me above is unnecessarily aggressive, and also illogical. Of course I could tell what you were trying to say, any third grader could… your point being what again? Oh, how well you use nonsense, as a debating method, that’s right. Including the NONSENSE that me thinking Obama is too far to the right and complaining about him as a Liberal somehow magically negates said criticism or relegates it to some kind of strange Neilian netherworld? Wow, you are really odd, and that’s an understatement. And Jerk, for someone who has accused me unreasonably of “ranting” – the above is nothing but. Just sayin’.

  12. paul wenum June 29, 2011 at 12:07 am #

    Interesting comments. By the way, Robbie boy seems to be in denial.

  13. Rob N. Hood June 29, 2011 at 9:08 am #

    Sure Paul, whatever you say…. You ought to know.

  14. paul wenum June 29, 2011 at 8:22 pm #

    Reading your posts, I do.

  15. Jerk A. Knot June 30, 2011 at 8:16 am #

    Again Robbie Boy showes that he is not interested in discourse. All he wants to do is shoot off his one line jabs and post Coppied material from Ultra Left wing sites with out being challanged on the facts in them. Of course if we post anything we are brainwashed and lack logic and reasoning.

    Robbie Boy you have been intelectually dishonest with everyone here. That is my opinion of you. I am being fair to you. When V was posting here he or she would argue the facts and not make the personal quips. He would also post his sourses for his facts. Sure it got hot every now and then but he kept to facts. You chalanege no one when it comes to thinking. That is why you have not been able to find intelegence here. You have brought nothing to bring it out. I am dismissing you as irevelent now and I will not be responding to your personal quips anymore if you want to discuss facts I will endulge you. But I will no longer “Play your Game” and delude the conversation.

  16. Rob N. Hood June 30, 2011 at 6:55 pm #

    You were not here Jerk when I did what you say I haven’t. I’m way beyond that point with you guys and this site. Where is V btw? Long gone apparently regardless of your belated faux-admiration of that entity. I should have tried using reverse psychology with you children a long time ago. I didn’t realize that’s what it would take to get some actual dialogue going here. You are much too late, not that you, or I, or anyone else here really cares that much, regardless of your crocodile tears. Dan, however, might care since I’ve kept thinigs here lively for so long. Oh well. So much for lively. And so sorry you “will no longer play (my) game.” Funny, cuz you just got done complaining that I wasn’t playing along anymore. If you people weren’t so confounding you would be really funny. (note the nice word I used: confounding. My parting in a civlized manner…)

    P.S. And I’m also sorry I didn’t bring out any “intelegence” here, or that I didn’t “chalanege” anyone either- yep, that’s my fault too… (snicker).

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 30, 2011 at 8:57 pm #

      I was here and no, you never did. That only exists in your imagination. You have always had the the same pattern of non sequitar, insult, name calling, non sequitar, insult, name calling. You are the proverbial broken record. Ooops, I forgot one, feign indignation. So the pattern is non sequitar, insult, name calling, feign indignation, non sequitar, insult, name calling, feign indignation, but not always in that order. I have to chuckle sometimes when you insist that your arguments are logical and reasonable when they are anything but. Like the Gulf oil spill that was going to cause environmental damage the likes of which we have never seen…… that we still have never seen BTW. And what about the Arizona shooting? You know the one that was caused by right wing radio talk shows…. that wasn’t caused by right wing radio talk shows? Those are just a couple of examples I can think of off the top of my head that you were in lockstep with the leftwing media kneejerk reaction. And turned out to be just as wrong. I mean really RNH, you wouldn’t know logic or reason if they came up and bit you on the arse

      • Rob N. Hood July 1, 2011 at 10:21 am #

        No, I did post facts much in the same manner you have done. Do no discernible effect other than to elicit the exact same thing you are accusing me of. Yes, I am guilty of all that you say, to some extent or another. But so are you. That makes you hypocritical, again, as usual. You add more opinions to the post above, which are nothing but. And if and when you and yours are fortuitously correct about something you beat that horse until it is unrecognizable and never let anyone forget that YOU WERE CORRECT about something. Only problem with that is you simply mostly choose what you want to believe and then label that as fact. That is very childish… the only term to be used for that kind of thinking. And I will say this one last time. For those who do not or cannot use logic and reasoning regularly, it would then logically follow that you would not recognize when used by others. That much at least I have learned here. Your post is the new and typical right-wing victim play-acting. You guys can sure dish it out like crazy but you sure can’t take it.

        • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD July 2, 2011 at 8:39 am #

          Amazing how your twisting of facts extends to your own memory

          • Rob N. Hood July 12, 2011 at 2:42 pm #

            What you have identified as FACTS are in actuality fantasy- which is very unfortunate but typical for the radical right.

      • Jerk A. Knot July 1, 2011 at 12:27 pm #

        Neil and Paul,

        Thanks. eventhough I did not need it. I am going to the beach next week and enjoying som sunshine. I am going to take advantage of this “Global Warming” oops Climate before it changes this year and snowes again. I got an e-mail that Aspen will have the slopes open for the 4th of July… that is a very rare occurence. See ya when I get back. I won’t be visiting this site whle I am gone.

        PS I thought about taking RNH with me to entertain my Kids but he would probably bore them… I also don’t have the right credentials to check him out.

        • Rob N. Hood July 1, 2011 at 1:36 pm #

          Droll. Oh so witty…

  17. paul wenum June 30, 2011 at 8:46 pm #

    Your P.S. is very telling of your personality. Have a good evening.

    • Rob N. Hood July 12, 2011 at 2:42 pm #

      Droll, Paul. Oh so witty.

  18. Rob N. Hood July 1, 2011 at 10:14 am #

    As if you have never posted practically the exact same thing… or can’t you remember that far back?! Guess we have similar personalities… yikes!

  19. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD July 2, 2011 at 2:59 pm #

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/07/climate-models-fail-to-agree-with-5.html
    “almost all state-of-the-art climate models project significant slowdown of the AMOC [Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation] during this century in response to the increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.”

    “Could the findings of Zhang et al. mean that the projections of “almost all state-of-the-art climate models” are just plain wrong? They sure could, for real-world observations always win out over theoretical projections if they differ; and so far, at least, that’s what the observations are doing — they’re winning.”

  20. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD July 2, 2011 at 10:52 pm #

    http://climateaudit.org/2011/07/02/more-mendacity-from-east-anglia-revealed/
    More developments from http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/7/1/uea-financials.htmlon the strange relationship between the University of East Anglia and the supposedly “independent” Muir Russell review. On yet another occasion, the University gave untrue answers in order to avoid FOI disclosure, an untrue answer that led to several follow-up FOI requests that they were unable to subvert, but which ultimately showed the mendacity of the original refusal.

    In this case, the original request from David Holland in December 2010 (see CA post http://climateaudit.org/2011/02/28/the-muir-russell-contract/ ) was for the documents, that “in the view of the University, comprises the contractual basis under which Sir Muir and his team operated and under which the University was contractually obliged to pay the sums that you have disclosed”. The request was not limited to Muir Russell, but included, for example, the retainer of professionals, including Luther Pendragon and lawyers.

  21. Joe July 3, 2011 at 9:22 pm #

    Thanks Neil,

    Keep everyone back on point I say. Would have responded sooner to rb, small letters, but had a tornado to deal with. Minor inconvenience.

    • Rob N. Hood July 4, 2011 at 1:51 pm #

      Joe, you would have “responded sooner”? Where is your response? Doesn’t matter… it’s all a broken record anyway.

  22. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD July 4, 2011 at 5:52 am #

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7970&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+ClimaterealistsNewsBlog+%28ClimateRealists+News+Blog%29
    “Jim Salinger, one of the scientists suspected of criminal misconduct in the Climategate scandal has been elected to the prestigious role of President of the Commission for Agricultural Meteorology of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Climate skeptics are aghast at the news.

    Salinger remains a suspected accomplice in the tight knit international clique of climatologists involved in the data corruption scandal at the University of East Anglia (UEA), England. Commenting on that ongoing criminal probe, Senior Investigating Officer (SIO), Detective Superintendent Julian Gregory said:

    “This has been a complex investigation, undertaken in a global context and requiring detailed and time consuming lines of enquiry. Due to the sensitivity of the investigation it has not been possible to share details of enquiries with the media and the public and it would be inappropriate for us to comment any further at this time.”

    Pointedly, Salinger had been an employee of the UEA before his appointment at the New Zealand’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA). But was fired after the Climategate scandal hit the headlines. In an ironic twist it’s the Kiwi government department now trumpeting his new WMO appointment on the NIWA website.”

  23. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD July 4, 2011 at 9:54 am #

    Dan. The GRAVITAR thing is not working. I have been trying to put a picture up for a while now. I revisited it today and all my pictures were gone and the one I added today will not appear. Just a FIY.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD July 4, 2011 at 9:54 am #

      Um… FYI I mean.

  24. paul wenum July 4, 2011 at 10:52 pm #

    Mr. Hood, my reply may have been deleted? I’m new at this place.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD July 5, 2011 at 5:44 pm #

      Paul, are you posting as Joe? I’m confused. RNH is responding to Joe.

  25. Joe July 5, 2011 at 9:50 pm #

    I know. Went through a tornado with major damage. Thank God my wife and family are ok. Though I would give the boy a hard time. He’s never been through hard times. Wanted to make his day. Done venting.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD July 6, 2011 at 4:28 am #

      Sorry to hear that Joe. Welcome to GCS!

      • Rob N. Hood July 7, 2011 at 2:29 pm #

        Wow, more delusion and confusion from the Rightys.

  26. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD July 6, 2011 at 7:00 pm #

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2011162/Wind-farms-whoom-whoom-whoom-noise-drove-mad-farmers-claiming-3m-tell-High-Court.html
    “A couple driven out of their home by noise from a wind farm launched a landmark battle in the High Court yesterday over their inability to get a peaceful night’s sleep.
    Jane and Julian Davis say the low- frequency hum of the 320ft tall turbines, which they liken to the sound of a helicopter, kept them awake even with earplugs and their double glazed windows closed.
    They claim it became so intolerable they were forced to move from their home in Deeping St Nicholas, Lincolnshire, six months after the eight-turbine wind farm began operating just over half a mile from their home in 2006.”

    “Opening the case yesterday Peter Harrison QC, representing the couple, said: ‘For Jane and Julian Davis, wind farms have emphatically not been the source of trouble-free, green renewable energy which the firms promoting and profiting from wind energy would have the general public believe.”

  27. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD July 6, 2011 at 7:07 pm #

    This should be read by all in it’s entirety. A must read.

    http://blogs.forbes.com/larrybell/2011/07/05/michael-mann-and-the-climategate-whitewash-part-ii/
    “Did the Climate Change Emails Review accomplish the goal Muir-Russell called for : “a concerted and sustained campaign to win hearts and minds” to restore confidence in the [CRU] team’s work” ? The Lancent scientific journal’s editor, Richard Horton, doesn’t think so. Testifying before the inquiry, he said: “The Muir-Russell review has rejected all claims of serious scientific misconduct. But he does identify failures, evasions, misleading actions, unjustifiable delays [in releasing information], and pervasive unhelpfulness- all of which amounts to severely sub-optimal academic practice. Climate science will never be the same again.”-”

  28. Joe July 6, 2011 at 7:52 pm #

    Nice read! Keep it up!

  29. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD July 7, 2011 at 7:31 pm #

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503
    The conventional explanation for controversy over climate change emphasizes impediments to public understanding: Limited popular knowledge of science, the inability of ordinary citizens to assess technical information, and the resulting widespread use of unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk. A large survey of U.S. adults (N = 1540) found little support for this account. On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones. More importantly, greater scientific literacy and numeracy were associated with greater cultural polarization: Respondents predisposed by their values to dismiss climate change evidence became more dismissive, and those predisposed by their values to credit such evidence more concerned, as science literacy and numeracy increased. We suggest that this evidence reflects a conflict between two levels of rationality: The individual level, which is characterized by citizens’ effective use of their knowledge and reasoning capacities to form risk perceptions that express their cultural commitments; and the collective level, which is characterized by citizens’ failure to converge on the best available scientific evidence on how to promote their common welfare. Dispelling this, “tragedy of the risk-perception commons,” we argue, should be understood as the central aim of the science of science communication.

  30. Rob N. Hood July 8, 2011 at 8:46 am #

    Oh… “the science of science communication”… another tricky conspiracy theory to chew on. What is their (the evil doers) aim, btw?

  31. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD July 8, 2011 at 8:01 pm #

    Basically they are saying that it is a myth that smarter, more educated people are more concerned about climate change. Their survey is telling a different story. Which means that the people who are concerned about climate change are morons who believe the lies coming out of the IPCC, Eyeore’s mouth, and the UEA!

    • Rob N. Hood July 9, 2011 at 3:09 pm #

      ok, but what’s their evil aim?

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD July 9, 2011 at 3:58 pm #

        From where are you getting the “evil aim”? The above post says nothing about anyone’s evil intentions. If you want to know more then click on the link and read the paper youself, and come up with your own conclusions. That, BTW, is why I provided the link.

  32. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD July 8, 2011 at 8:09 pm #

    http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool
    “According to the National Climatic Data Center, in Washington State, Apr-Jun 2011 was -3.6 deg F below the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, making Spring 2011 the coldest Apr-Jun in the past 117 years.”

    “Both Oregon and Washington just experienced the coldest Spring in over a century, using official NCDC data going back 117 years. The April through June period most closely approximates the Spring period.”

    “Australia has experienced its coldest autumn since at least 1950 for mean temperatures (average of maximum and minimum temperatures across the nation) with an Australian average of 20.9C. This was 1.15C below the historical average, and 0.2C below the previous coolest autumn in 1960. It was also the coldest autumn since at least 1950 for Queensland and the Northern Territory. Large parts of the country recorded temperatures more than 2ºC below the autumn average (figure 1) with about half the country ranking in the coldest 10% of years. The season was marked by consistent below-normal temperatures in most areas, with only a few individual areas recording their coldest autumn on record. These areas were in northern and central Australia including the east Kimberley, the central Northern Territory and small parts of northern Queensland.”

  33. Joe July 8, 2011 at 11:27 pm #

    Where is this published in the MSM?

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD July 9, 2011 at 11:35 am #

      I’m confused now. Do I call you Joe, or Paul? If you are diong this to confuse RNH, I think it is working too well!
      Anyway to answer your question, the MSM is not going to report on things like this because they are complicit in the AGW Global Climate Scam. It’s really no more simple than that.

  34. Rob N. Hood July 9, 2011 at 3:12 pm #

    So Neil… who is behind the MSM (entity or entities)?

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD July 9, 2011 at 6:09 pm #

      People just like you. And what I mean by that is that you will take anything and twist it to suit your beliefs, and goals and the truth be dammed!

  35. Rob N. Hood July 9, 2011 at 6:23 pm #

    Are you referring to the MSM or the evil aim of AGW? Please clarify. Your response is far from rational or complete.

  36. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD July 9, 2011 at 6:57 pm #

    Sorry that you have a lack of clarity. That sounds like a personal problem.

    • Rob N. Hood July 10, 2011 at 2:27 pm #

      Neil, I posed a sincere and simple question and you won’t answer it? And Joe you passive-aggressively blame me for the same thing? Wow.

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD July 10, 2011 at 5:38 pm #

        Yes. It’s about the same as I get when I ask you a question. Read the paper if you want to know more.

        • Rob N. Hood July 10, 2011 at 5:58 pm #

          Not true. You are being a hypocrite. I answered, but you don’t. More of the same from you “geniuses”. That’s ok though, I’m not surprised.

        • Rob N. Hood July 11, 2011 at 8:45 am #

          Why would I “read the paper” to “know more” if I’m trying to get specific clarification from you about what you posted. Is that logical/rational? Not even close. And Joe- I wasn’t even communicating with you, so why are you being a nanny?

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD July 11, 2011 at 8:22 pm #

            Because what I posted was the abstract for a study, and what you are asking about is something that was not in the abstract, or anywhere else for that matter! The answer to your question is: NOBODY SAID ANYTHING ABOUT EVIL DOERS, OR EVIL INTENTIONS BUT YOU!!!!!!! Get over it, move on.

  37. Joe July 9, 2011 at 10:04 pm #

    He has a personal problem called answering a question.

  38. Rob N. Hood July 10, 2011 at 7:33 pm #

    I know right?

  39. Joe July 10, 2011 at 9:32 pm #

    I guess ignorance is bliss they say, or lack thereof. Which is it?

  40. Jerk A. Knot July 11, 2011 at 10:59 am #

    I am back from a wonderful vacation on the Gulf of Mexico… Nice and warm…

    RNH you are not being fair. You asked a question that Neil answered. You asked him about “evil aim” and he said he did not claim that there was an “evil aim”. Then he referenced his artical and told you to go find it because it is a topic you assert and he does not. So why do you call him a hyprocryte when he did answer your question. Is it because he does not meet your sterotype?

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD July 11, 2011 at 6:17 pm #

      it’s called setting up a false premise then feigning indignation. A common tactic used by Leftists. I refuse to play along. Which is probably the most upsetting thing to him.

      • Rob N. Hood July 12, 2011 at 2:29 pm #

        No, just simple and reasonable questions directly related to your statements, all in the name of reciprical discourse. That’s all… oh, right it’s all too logical and rational for you….I keep forgetting that part.

    • Rob N. Hood July 12, 2011 at 2:27 pm #

      Uhh, he said that after I hounded him. Too many marguerita’s Jerk? AND he USED the term EVIL AIM…………..wtf?

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD July 12, 2011 at 5:53 pm #

        Go back and read your own posts. You were the first to ask about an evil aim. I guess your twisting of facts has now become instantanious, as you read the words?

        • Rob N. Hood July 13, 2011 at 2:30 pm #

          I saw it somewhere, same with “smoke screen” etc. No response about any claims you’ve made re: the conspiracy behind all this Liberal/Socialism/Communist/Elitist stuff. You denying you believe this is a “hoax” and if so must be related to a conspiracy and a big one at that. Look, it’s ok if you don’t want to answer certain questions or points, that’s your right, as it is mine. So quit all the sanctimonious blabbering- talk about cry babies…

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD July 13, 2011 at 5:03 pm #

            I have no idea what you are talking about.

          • Jerk A. Knot July 14, 2011 at 7:49 am #

            OH yea you saw ir “somewhere” but cant point at it. And you call us unreasonable. You can not even back up your own statements. The “smoke screen” stuff was posted by Paul not Neil. Come on MR Logic get with it and keep your posts and conversations straight. Stop just spewing jabs and inuendo. I guess what I am saying is please use that logic and reasoning you tout so much. I am not saying you can not bring up other points or issues just keep them straight.

      • Jerk A. Knot July 13, 2011 at 8:15 am #

        Sorry I don’t drink…. but obviously you are smoking something. Stay with the conversation now Robbie Boy.

        • Rob N. Hood July 15, 2011 at 4:39 pm #

          I tried to find it the “evil aim” statement… but I didn’t. No matter cuz it coincided very closely with a few other candid statements previously made re: the same topic by the usual suspects on this site. So… it’s a mere technicality. Just like a Righty to use such a minor thing to avoid a difficult discussion. So tell me… do you NOT think that AGW is or has an EVIL AIM? If so, or if not, please honor us with your reasonable and logical insight. If you are up to it… and either way I will not accuse you in such a juvenile manner about smoking or drinking something. What worries me is you all don’t need smoke or drink to think the way you do.

          • Jerk A. Knot July 18, 2011 at 10:33 am #

            I think that like so many thing AGW is mostly used by people who like to manuilipate the uninformed masses into a type of hysteria that is unnessary in order to fulfill thier agenda…. You fall into that catagory in my opinion. Oh I am sure you will point at the Right and say YOU DO THE SAME THING!!!! all full of your self thinking you have won some great victory… but it goes back to this. 2 wrongs dont make a right and all the sins of the RIGHT dont excuse the lies of the LEFT.

  41. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD July 11, 2011 at 6:25 pm #

    Look at this chart. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/archibald_july2011_solar_fig3.png
    I got this from ths blog post from WUWT http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/09/solar-activity-report-the-sun-is-still-in-a-funk/ It’s a good post. Check it out.

  42. Joe July 11, 2011 at 9:18 pm #

    Excellent post. Holly Cow, we must control the Sun! Where’s Gore when we need him. Let’s trade ultraviolet rays? Any bets for a UV Cap N Trade?

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD July 11, 2011 at 9:28 pm #

      Shhhhhh! Don’t give em any ideas!

  43. Joe July 12, 2011 at 9:30 pm #

    Oops, I spilled the beans. Darn it. Can I retract my previous statement?

  44. Rob N. Hood July 13, 2011 at 2:32 pm #

    Juvenile fun… is that all you got?

  45. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD July 13, 2011 at 6:40 pm #

    http://www.co2science.org/articles/V14/N28/C1.php
    “The nine U.S. researchers determined that “analysis of forced model simulations indicates that neither human influences nor other slowly evolving ocean boundary conditions contributed substantially to the magnitude of the heat wave.” In fact, they say that the model simulations provided “evidence that such an intense event could be produced through natural variability alone.” Similarly, on the observation front, they state that “July surface temperatures for the region impacted by the 2010 Russian heat wave show no significant warming trend over the prior 130-year period from 1880-2009,” noting, in fact, that “a linear trend calculation yields a total temperature change over the 130 years of -0.1°C.” In addition, they indicate that “no significant difference exists between July temperatures over western Russia averaged for the last 65 years (1945-2009) versus the prior 65 years (1880-1944),” and they state that “there is also no clear indication of a trend toward increasing warm extremes.” Last of all, they say that although there was a slightly higher variability in temperature in the latter period, the increase was “not statistically significant.”-”

  46. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD July 14, 2011 at 5:33 am #

    This is a great article that is, in a nice way, saying what I have always thought and said about computer climate modeling. And it says it better than I ever could.
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n7/full/ngeo1200.html
    “Critical thresholds may be inherent to the climate system. If so, they could lead to abrupt, and perhaps irreversible, changes to the Earth system. This possibility has caught the imagination of the public — often under the emotive term ‘tipping points’ — and has led to a huge growth in media and scientific publications on the topic in the past few years. If we are about to cross such a critical threshold, the implications for climate adaptation strategies could be significant. Likewise, knowledge of thresholds would have a strong influence on mitigation policy, not least by helping to define the meaning of the term ‘dangerous climate change’.

    Yet it is less clear exactly how such critical thresholds should be defined, whether they even exist and, if so, whether we are close to one. Expert elicitation is subjective. And attempts to identify early signals of catastrophic change with a variety of nonlinear system techniques are, in practice, unlikely to provide warning with sufficient lead times. Climate model simulations are the only other means for gaining advance knowledge of sudden climate change. It is therefore crucial to assess whether the available models are capable of investigating these phenomena.”

  47. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD July 16, 2011 at 7:37 pm #

    http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog
    “There is no statistically significant warming trend since November of 1996 in monthly surface temperature records compiled at the University of East Anglia. Do we now understand why there’s been no change in fourteen and a half years?

    If you read the news stories surrounding a recent paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Boston University’’s Robert Kaufmann and three colleagues, you’d say yes, indeed. It’s China’s fault. By dramatically increasing their combustion of coal, they have increased the concentration of fine particles in the atmosphere called sulphate aerosols, which reflect away solar radiation, countering the warming that should be occurring from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.

    Further, if this is true, then (as is usual in climate-world), “it’s worse than we thought”. After all, China will eventually reduce their sulfate emissions as their population becomes affluent enough to demand something better than miasmic air. Indeed, they are already beginning to clean things up, and when they finally do, all the cooling particles will be gone and the earth will warm substantially.

    Reality may be a bit simpler, or much more complicated. But the reason this is all so important is that if there is no good explanation for the lack of warming, then an increasingly viable alternative is that we have overestimated the gross sensitivity of temperature to carbon dioxide in our computer models.”

  48. Joe July 16, 2011 at 10:18 pm #

    Thank you Neil for posting. Read the same article. Interesting read. Keep us updated as you always do. You are like most of us on this site. Facts speak, or should I say major doubt speaks about what is being pushed down our throats by the subjective “experts.” Keep it up.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD July 17, 2011 at 5:18 pm #

      Well Joe, you see, RNH’s job is to derail discussion here of the topics of AGW, (Climate Change, Global Climate Disruption, whatever you want to call it, or whatever they change it to again next week.) If he can get people riled up, and have an argument ensue, it is playing right into his objective. So what I like to do is just when he thinks he’s dragged me off into his argument I whip one of these gems out. So I guess I’m playing a little game, but at least it brings the topic back on point.

  49. Rob N. Hood July 17, 2011 at 6:40 pm #

    Oh so sweetly humble, Neil. You are the rock that keeps this site from totally imploding into irrelevancy. As I’ve said before, Dan should be paying you. Where’s that big ego we all know and love?

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD July 17, 2011 at 8:01 pm #

      My gargantuan ego is dwarfed only by your own.

  50. Joe July 17, 2011 at 9:56 pm #

    Thanks Neil for avoiding the annoyance. Keep it up on posting interesting articles, not opinions from a unknown entity. Life your posts and look forward to reading them. As to this Robbin H? Disregard his white sound, it gets in your way of posting real subject matter that pertains to this site.

Leave a Reply

A project of Minnesota Majority