"Arctic narwhals reveal climate-model errors"

[URL]http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19658-arctic-narwhals-reveal-climatemodel-errors.html[/URL]

(my emphasis added -- cheesehead)

[quote]Narwhals diving nearly 2 kilometres below polar ice have revealed that climatology models used for the Baffin bay region – which links the Atlantic and Arctic oceans – [U][B]under[/B][/U]estimate winter ocean temperatures there by as much as 1 °C.

The new data gathered from narwhals tagged with a temperature-depth gauge and satellite transmitter - a package around the size of a deck of cards - show that earlier warming between Greenland and the Baffin Islands of Canada has continued over the last decade.

They provide the best winter temperature measurements yet for this biologically important part of the Arctic Ocean, and add to a body of data showing that ocean temperatures around the world are warming.

. . .[/quote]

[QUOTE=cheesehead;235157]garo,



I've now found Ritholtz's quotation at [URL]http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/07/grantham-everything-you-need-to-know-about-global-warming-in-5-minutes/[/URL]

Do you know whether Ritholtz's quote was complete -- the entirety of Grantham essay?[/QUOTE]

Yes it is the complete bit of his essay that dealt with GW. His new essay is out now but that deal with the Fed and QE.

PS: You should be able to get a pdf of the Q2 letter by searching on zerohedge.com

As we pass the first anniversary of "Climategate", skepticalscience.com examines the current status of that public-opinion manipulation by anti-AGW folks, in a six-part series:

"The Fake Scandal of Climategate" at [URL]http://www.skepticalscience.com/fake-scandal-Climategate.html[/URL]

"Climategate: Tampering with Temperatures?" at [URL]http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-temperature-record.html[/URL]

"Climategate: Hiding the Decline?" at [URL]http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-hide-the-decline.html[/URL]

"Climategate: Perverting Peer Review?" at [URL]http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-peer-review.html[/URL]

"Climategate: Keeping Skeptics Out of the IPCC?" at [URL]http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-keep-them-out.html[/URL]

"Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?" at [URL]http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-freedom-of-information.html[/URL]

From the first part:
[quote][B]The CRU scientists have been cleared[/B]

In the months that followed, there were several inquiries into the allegations resulting from the emails. When a few of the more suggestive email quotes are reeled off by pundits without much context, they can sound pretty damning. But each and every one of these inquiries [URL="http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-question-that-skeptics-dont-want-to-ask-about-Climategate.html"]has found no fraud and no conspiracy[/URL].

. . .

So the science is unchanged by Climategate. But politically, as many others have lamented, the affair has been very damaging both to public trust in science and to the prospects of mitigating future warming. Less has been written on the repercussions for the scientists themselves.

For one thing, the CRU scientists and other prominent climatologists [URL="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/05/hate-mail-climategate"]are being targeted[/URL] by unbelievably [URL="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/06/hacked-climate-science-emails-sceptics-abuse"]vitriolic and paranoid hate mail[/URL]. Phil Jones [URL="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017905.ece"]told the [I]Sunday Times[/I][/URL]he had received a number of death threats including two in one week, and considered suicide. In the US (where freedom of speech means the police cannot do anything about it), the late Stephen Schneider said he’d received hundreds of abusive emails. A number of climate scientists allegedly appeared on a neo-Nazi death list. In Australia too, [URL="http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/32912.html"]climate scientists get hate mail[/URL], as do environmental journalists and Greens politicians.

Before you dismiss these emailers as nutcases unconnected with more sophisticated contrarians, consider that [URL="http://www.desmogblog.com/marc-morano"]Marc Morano[/URL], communications director for US Republican Senator James Inhofe and owner of the website Climate Depot, [URL="http://mind.ofdan.ca/?p=3700"]makes a habit[/URL] of posting the email addresses of those he disagrees with. Morano has also [URL="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-cyber-bullying"]been quoted as saying[/URL] about climate scientists: “I seriously believe we should kick them while they’re down. They deserve to be publicly flogged.” [URL="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/01/inhofe-climate-mccarthyite"]Michael Mann told the [I]Guardian[/I][/URL]some of his hate mail looked “cut-and-paste”.

. . .

Meanwhile, the US Republican Party has stepped up its war on science. ... As [URL="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/10/cuccinelli-goes-fishing-again/"]RealClimate pointed out[/URL]: “This is not just an attack on Mike Mann, it is an attack on the whole scientific enterprise.”

. . .

Far from exposing a global warming fraud, “Climategate” merely exposed the depths to which contrarians are willing to sink in their attempts to manufacture doubt about AGW. They cannot win the argument on scientific grounds, so now they are trying to discredit researchers themselves. Climategate was a fake scandal from beginning to end, and the media swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. The real scandal is the attacks on climate science which have done untold damage to the reputation of the scientists involved, the reputation of climate science (maybe even science generally), and the fight to save the planet.[/quote]How many of the anti-AGWers are proud of these results? How many of the others have actually tried to do something to stop this abuse?

[QUOTE]Phil Jones told the Sunday Times he had received a number of death threats including two in one week, and considered suicide.[/QUOTE]

AGW could actually be stopped if a significant number of people committed suicide. Cheesehead: stop bitchin' and finally do your part.

[QUOTE=Calvin Culus;238877]AGW could actually be stopped if a significant number of people committed suicide. Cheesehead: stop bitchin' and finally do your part.[/QUOTE]Care to explain in more detail what you mean?

[QUOTE=Calvin Culus;238877]AGW could actually be stopped if a significant number of people committed suicide. Cheesehead: stop bitchin' and finally do your part.[/QUOTE]
Please see my link posted above.

This forum is way too PC to be entertaining/interesting/informative. If every controversial post is deleted by a confederacy of dunces, then one ends up with a consenus of dolts.

[QUOTE=Calvin Culus;239120]This forum is way too PC to be entertaining/interesting/informative. If every controversial post is deleted by a confederacy of dunces, then one ends up with a consenus of dolts.[/QUOTE]This is intended to be "family friendly". The soap box is a bit more free-wheeling. But links to porn and gore are generally not "family friendly", so also very vulgar language. If it the post would get an X rating (or what it links to), it does not belong here.

I stand up as the one that fingered your post.:hello: I personally have seen the video before. I can handle seeing it, I have seen worse. But, it was not in my mind appropriate. I made that known to the moderators. Whoever handle the report must have agreed, at least to some level, as the removed it.
Aim all of your bile and vituperation right here, I can take it.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;239124]This is intended to be "family friendly". The soap box is a bit more free-wheeling. But links to porn and gore are generally not "family friendly", so also very vulgar language. If it the post would get an X rating (or what it links to), it does not belong here.[/QUOTE]

Some facts are not family friendly. Censorship does not change objective reality, not matter how stubborn one wishes to believe the opposite or deceive oneself that it is excusable for a just cause. Cheesehead's narrowmindedness deserved to be ridiculed - as does yours - for it is undeniable that any method that prevents people from breathing is much more effective at lowering anthropogenic CO[SUB]2[/SUB] emmisions, than donating $10 to the WWF and pooh-poohing everyone who doesn't spend all his free time worrying whether the way he sorts his trash maintains the appearance of being environmetally responsible.

[QUOTE=Calvin Culus;239161]Some facts are not family friendly. Censorship does not change objective reality, not matter how stubborn one wishes to believe the opposite or deceive oneself that it is excusable for a just cause. Cheesehead's narrowmindedness deserved to be ridiculed - as does yours - for it is undeniable that any method that prevents people from breathing is much more effective at lowering anthropogenic CO[SUB]2[/SUB] emmisions, than donating $10 to the WWF and pooh-poohing everyone who doesn't spend all his free time worrying whether the way he sorts his trash maintains the appearance of being environmetally responsible.[/QUOTE]

Cule it Calvin.

Take a bit of time to familiarize yourself with the character of this
forum, its participants and etiquette.

David

[QUOTE=Calvin Culus;239120]This forum is way too PC to be entertaining/interesting/informative. If every controversial post is deleted by a confederacy of dunces, then one ends up with a consenus of dolts.[/QUOTE]

Well, let's see ... your video was grossly inappropriate for an all-ages forum like this, and contributed nothing whatsoever (except your ensuing silly whining about censorship in a privately owned and maintained forum) to the discussion. So I deleted it. Next?

FYI, it's not just videos like the one you posted which we censor ... crush videos, human-on-animal porn, etc, all get the same heavy-handed, civil-rights-denying treatment. (Animal-on-human porn, OTOH, we deal with case-by-case, since there's a chance there it's consensual and might be educational in an "Animal Planet" kind of way. Just send the video link to Xyzzy for a thorough, um, 'vetting', and he'll get back to you as regards suitability for the kiddies).

But yes, our standards of discourse are clearly much too narrow for one so immensely creative and filled with powerfully thought-provoking ideas as yourself ... we are beneath you, sir, and every second of your invaluable time which you waste posting here rather than enlightening those-who-are-open-to-your-wisdom fills us with shame for having denied the wider world the intellectual wonders you have to offer it.