Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: But, how do we know this is right?

Expand Messages
  • HappyChopperRecords
    Hi Lloyd! Thanks for engaging! Can I once again request that you provide evidence for your statements? It does sound like you ve read the article, so you ll
    Message 1 of 8 , Oct 2, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Lloyd!

      Thanks for engaging!

      Can I once again request that you provide evidence for your statements? It does sound like you've read the article, so you'll have read the point about "confirmation bias", our tendency to rely only on the evidence that backs up our own viewpoint. For me to avoid this, it would be great to know where you're getting your info from. I hope that at the same time, you can maybe look at your own argument, and reflect where you may also be doing this.

      In terms of my graph, it's interesting that you pick this up, as on your thread explaining why we'll never reach 2C I was unsure that your statement "We've only had 0.6C of warming" was accurate. Here's a link to another graph showing how temperatures have increased:

      http://simpleclimate.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/julytemp.jpg

      Do you have the evidence showing that the 30s and 40s had higher rates of record highs and lows to hand (ie can you dig it out and link to it)? It's definitely worth remembering that the world cooled 0.3C in four years around 1970, covered in last week's Nature (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7314/full/nature09394.html), but that doesn't discount the fact it's been rapidly warming in more recent years. My instinct is that the criticisms of this graph are just a way to ignore the main message here: but in the spirit of the article, if you provide the evidence (referring to sources), I'll try and overcome my "confirmation bias".

      I find your comments about every single climatologist being tainted very hard to believe. Nothing is ever that clear cut. And even if they are, they have been created by a society that we have more-or-less democratically assembled together. If you are right, it asks some serious questions about the way we live today.

      It's also interesting that you react with such hostility to this post: I've also received a somewhat cold reception from more pro-AGW people, I guess because asking people whether their ideas are really accurate is never welcome. It's generally good practice to question your own beliefs every once in a while, though, I feel.

      Also, if you felt like making these comments directly on my site, you'd be more than welcome! That way I might be more inclined to give proper answers to all your points.

      As an aside, do you know of any scientists that you trust on paleoclimate matters? You may have seen a report extrapolating from the last interglacial to the current warming. It seems to come up with conclusions that are so extreme even I find them hard to accept. I'd like to get some comments from some independent scientists to gain context - so any suggestions would be welcome.

      Cheers,
      Andy

      http://simpleclimate.wordpress.com/


      --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "lloydb" <poitsplace@...> wrote:
      >
      > The way this has been approached creates part of the problem. You'll notice once again the complete lack of an actual sensitivity. There's a GUESS. They talk about the concentration being about as high as it was 40 million years ago...but fail to point out that it was almost without question more that the temperature that was driving up CO2.
      >
      > Your graph of record temperature rates also has a serious flaw...first it misses the 1930s and 1940s (which had higher rates) and ignores the fact that while they do adjust for the urban heat island effect in the GLOBAL temperature record...they DO NOT adjust for it in the local records.These local records almost certainly have a disproportionately large number of poorly cited stations. OBVIOUSLY a paved parking lot in a concrete jungle is going to have higher temperatures than than the grassy field that was once there.
      >
      > So right there you can see two examples of the very thing the article is complaining about that are within the article its self and from "experts". Climatology has been tainted by a socio-political movement. Every last one of the budding "climatologists" going through school right now has had their heads lots and lots of propaganda. This is the greatest failure of the science in the history of the sciences. They're not 100% wrong but even on the things they manage to get right...they get the impacts wrong...so they're pushing pretty close to complete failure.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "HappyChopperRecords" <happychopperrecords@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Australian researchers have written about how only listening to evidence that supports your own outlook leads to a distorted view this month. Talking directly to scientists studying climate change and its impacts can reduce these biases. Read more at: http://wp.me/pLahN-h5
      > >
      >
    • lloydb
      You do realize the thing you provided was January-July temperatures. That doesn t necessarily mean its the same amount of warming for the whole year. Here s
      Message 2 of 8 , Oct 4, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        You do realize the thing you provided was January-July temperatures. That doesn't necessarily mean its the same amount of warming for the whole year. Here's the whole year's temps averaged out globally, GISS and Hadley with the satellites thrown in.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:60/plot/gistemp/mean:60/plot/rss/mean:60/plot/uah/mean:60/

        Isn't it odd that your evidence of global temperatures covers only summer temperatures? Does CO2 take vacations in the winter? BTW, note how GISS has some odd deviations...a reduction of the warming in the 1940s and a deviation from all others to show continued warming since the 2000s. These tweaks have happened in the last 15 years. But anyway, ignoring all that...about .6C of warming since 1900 with GISS and .6C of warming since the 1880s with Hadley.

        I don't have the data on record highs for the 30s and 40s but I recall seeing somewhere that they were higher than the 1940s...which makes perfect sense. ALSO NOTE, there would be a statistical error in viewing it by decades anyway. The 2000s warm period plateau covers a whole decade while the plateau around the 1940s is really more like mid 1930s to mid 1940s...reducing the impact.

        As for the climatologists being tainted...its kind of an inevitable consequence of the massive propaganda push on climate change. I guess they aren't 100% tainted...there are some skeptics remaining among the teachers (often attacked for daring to suggest CO2 might not be an evil monster) but for the most part all of the people going to school now for that (you'll notice that's what I was referring to) were raised during a time when CO2 has been pushed as the single biggest "control knob" in climate.

        So who do I trust? When mistakes anywhere near this bad happen...I stop trusting and start looking at the data myself. You've been fed a load of crap on a great many things by the massive propaganda machine.

        Malaria isn't increasing, its decreasing...and we used to have bad malaria problems in the US, the largest modern outbreak was in Siberia...so OBVIOUSLY it has little to do with temperature.

        CO2 makes plant life increase...PERIOD. Yes, there are other growth limiting factors but CO2 actually removes another of them (makes plants more drought resistant)

        Crop output CLIMBS with temperature. There are already crops that grow quite well in the tropics and the tropics wouldn't warm significantly. Increasing warmth would lengthen growth seasons in all the other zones and would simply cause a shift in the types of crops grown if the temperature did somehow cause problems.

        For the most part...a warmer world would be MORE conducive to life. During the holocene and other optiumums most of the world's deserts actually retreat because of increased rainfall. About the only place it gets worse is in the western US.

        Sea levels are not rising dangerously fast...and in fact someone has recently pointed out that ground water extraction alone explains MOST of the increase in sea level rise. But even with that...sea levels will not likely be more than .2 meters higher by 2100.

        Adaptation is essentially FREE. Since the 1970s, as temperatures have risen...furnaces have needed to be replaced and have simply been replaced with heat pumps. Roads need to be resurfaced every few years so there's no point in complaining that the asphalt formulation will need to be changed. Coastal defenses were made with an understanding that sea level rise would continue as it had...so they're fine. The plants and animal populations shift with temperature anyway...and almost every species alive lived through the holocene optimum (man is impacting them in other ways though).

        The seasonal "surplus deaths" show up IN THE WINTER...and the increase is HUGE. People ramble on stupidly (yes, its pretty stupid) about how horrible the heat waves were in europe with *gasp* 30000 excess deaths for ALL of europe. BUT the excess winter deaths for germany are greater than that number. The excess winter deaths for the UK are greater than that. The excess winter deaths in the US dwarf that figure (although they're just proportional to population). There is a reason people retire to WARMER climates!

        So yeah...I get really pissed off when I hear a line of BS propaganda telling us that 2C of warming is going to kill vast numbers of people...because its a load of crap. When people finally realize how badly they've been misinformed, they'll probably be a lot more pissed off than me.


        --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "HappyChopperRecords" <happychopperrecords@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hi Lloyd!
        >
        > Thanks for engaging!
        >
        > Can I once again request that you provide evidence for your statements? It does sound like you've read the article, so you'll have read the point about "confirmation bias", our tendency to rely only on the evidence that backs up our own viewpoint. For me to avoid this, it would be great to know where you're getting your info from. I hope that at the same time, you can maybe look at your own argument, and reflect where you may also be doing this.
        >
        > In terms of my graph, it's interesting that you pick this up, as on your thread explaining why we'll never reach 2C I was unsure that your statement "We've only had 0.6C of warming" was accurate. Here's a link to another graph showing how temperatures have increased:
        >
        > http://simpleclimate.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/julytemp.jpg
        >
        > Do you have the evidence showing that the 30s and 40s had higher rates of record highs and lows to hand (ie can you dig it out and link to it)? It's definitely worth remembering that the world cooled 0.3C in four years around 1970, covered in last week's Nature (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7314/full/nature09394.html), but that doesn't discount the fact it's been rapidly warming in more recent years. My instinct is that the criticisms of this graph are just a way to ignore the main message here: but in the spirit of the article, if you provide the evidence (referring to sources), I'll try and overcome my "confirmation bias".
        >
        > I find your comments about every single climatologist being tainted very hard to believe. Nothing is ever that clear cut. And even if they are, they have been created by a society that we have more-or-less democratically assembled together. If you are right, it asks some serious questions about the way we live today.
        >
        > It's also interesting that you react with such hostility to this post: I've also received a somewhat cold reception from more pro-AGW people, I guess because asking people whether their ideas are really accurate is never welcome. It's generally good practice to question your own beliefs every once in a while, though, I feel.
        >
        > Also, if you felt like making these comments directly on my site, you'd be more than welcome! That way I might be more inclined to give proper answers to all your points.
        >
        > As an aside, do you know of any scientists that you trust on paleoclimate matters? You may have seen a report extrapolating from the last interglacial to the current warming. It seems to come up with conclusions that are so extreme even I find them hard to accept. I'd like to get some comments from some independent scientists to gain context - so any suggestions would be welcome.
        >
        > Cheers,
        > Andy
        >
        > http://simpleclimate.wordpress.com/
        >
        >
        > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "lloydb" <poitsplace@> wrote:
        > >
        > > The way this has been approached creates part of the problem. You'll notice once again the complete lack of an actual sensitivity. There's a GUESS. They talk about the concentration being about as high as it was 40 million years ago...but fail to point out that it was almost without question more that the temperature that was driving up CO2.
        > >
        > > Your graph of record temperature rates also has a serious flaw...first it misses the 1930s and 1940s (which had higher rates) and ignores the fact that while they do adjust for the urban heat island effect in the GLOBAL temperature record...they DO NOT adjust for it in the local records.These local records almost certainly have a disproportionately large number of poorly cited stations. OBVIOUSLY a paved parking lot in a concrete jungle is going to have higher temperatures than than the grassy field that was once there.
        > >
        > > So right there you can see two examples of the very thing the article is complaining about that are within the article its self and from "experts". Climatology has been tainted by a socio-political movement. Every last one of the budding "climatologists" going through school right now has had their heads lots and lots of propaganda. This is the greatest failure of the science in the history of the sciences. They're not 100% wrong but even on the things they manage to get right...they get the impacts wrong...so they're pushing pretty close to complete failure.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "HappyChopperRecords" <happychopperrecords@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Australian researchers have written about how only listening to evidence that supports your own outlook leads to a distorted view this month. Talking directly to scientists studying climate change and its impacts can reduce these biases. Read more at: http://wp.me/pLahN-h5
        > > >
        > >
        >
      • John Sanderson
        All this is very interesting but do you really expect us to believe that the vast majority of climate scientists have somehow been brainwashed and that you and
        Message 3 of 8 , Oct 28, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          All this is very interesting but do you really expect us to believe that the vast majority of climate scientists have somehow been brainwashed and that you and a few others are the only people who can see the truth?
          JS



          To: globalwarming@yahoogroups.com
          From: poitsplace@...
          Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 09:24:16 +0000
          Subject: [Global Warming] Re: But, how do we know this is right?






          You do realize the thing you provided was January-July temperatures. That doesn't necessarily mean its the same amount of warming for the whole year. Here's the whole year's temps averaged out globally, GISS and Hadley with the satellites thrown in.

          http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:60/plot/gistemp/mean:60/plot/rss/mean:60/plot/uah/mean:60/

          Isn't it odd that your evidence of global temperatures covers only summer temperatures? Does CO2 take vacations in the winter? BTW, note how GISS has some odd deviations...a reduction of the warming in the 1940s and a deviation from all others to show continued warming since the 2000s. These tweaks have happened in the last 15 years. But anyway, ignoring all that...about .6C of warming since 1900 with GISS and .6C of warming since the 1880s with Hadley.

          I don't have the data on record highs for the 30s and 40s but I recall seeing somewhere that they were higher than the 1940s...which makes perfect sense. ALSO NOTE, there would be a statistical error in viewing it by decades anyway. The 2000s warm period plateau covers a whole decade while the plateau around the 1940s is really more like mid 1930s to mid 1940s...reducing the impact.

          As for the climatologists being tainted...its kind of an inevitable consequence of the massive propaganda push on climate change. I guess they aren't 100% tainted...there are some skeptics remaining among the teachers (often attacked for daring to suggest CO2 might not be an evil monster) but for the most part all of the people going to school now for that (you'll notice that's what I was referring to) were raised during a time when CO2 has been pushed as the single biggest "control knob" in climate.

          So who do I trust? When mistakes anywhere near this bad happen...I stop trusting and start looking at the data myself. You've been fed a load of crap on a great many things by the massive propaganda machine.

          Malaria isn't increasing, its decreasing...and we used to have bad malaria problems in the US, the largest modern outbreak was in Siberia...so OBVIOUSLY it has little to do with temperature.

          CO2 makes plant life increase...PERIOD. Yes, there are other growth limiting factors but CO2 actually removes another of them (makes plants more drought resistant)

          Crop output CLIMBS with temperature. There are already crops that grow quite well in the tropics and the tropics wouldn't warm significantly. Increasing warmth would lengthen growth seasons in all the other zones and would simply cause a shift in the types of crops grown if the temperature did somehow cause problems.

          For the most part...a warmer world would be MORE conducive to life. During the holocene and other optiumums most of the world's deserts actually retreat because of increased rainfall. About the only place it gets worse is in the western US.

          Sea levels are not rising dangerously fast...and in fact someone has recently pointed out that ground water extraction alone explains MOST of the increase in sea level rise. But even with that...sea levels will not likely be more than .2 meters higher by 2100.

          Adaptation is essentially FREE. Since the 1970s, as temperatures have risen...furnaces have needed to be replaced and have simply been replaced with heat pumps. Roads need to be resurfaced every few years so there's no point in complaining that the asphalt formulation will need to be changed. Coastal defenses were made with an understanding that sea level rise would continue as it had...so they're fine. The plants and animal populations shift with temperature anyway...and almost every species alive lived through the holocene optimum (man is impacting them in other ways though).

          The seasonal "surplus deaths" show up IN THE WINTER...and the increase is HUGE. People ramble on stupidly (yes, its pretty stupid) about how horrible the heat waves were in europe with *gasp* 30000 excess deaths for ALL of europe. BUT the excess winter deaths for germany are greater than that number. The excess winter deaths for the UK are greater than that. The excess winter deaths in the US dwarf that figure (although they're just proportional to population). There is a reason people retire to WARMER climates!

          So yeah...I get really pissed off when I hear a line of BS propaganda telling us that 2C of warming is going to kill vast numbers of people...because its a load of crap. When people finally realize how badly they've been misinformed, they'll probably be a lot more pissed off than me.

          --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "HappyChopperRecords" <happychopperrecords@...> wrote:
          >
          > Hi Lloyd!
          >
          > Thanks for engaging!
          >
          > Can I once again request that you provide evidence for your statements? It does sound like you've read the article, so you'll have read the point about "confirmation bias", our tendency to rely only on the evidence that backs up our own viewpoint. For me to avoid this, it would be great to know where you're getting your info from. I hope that at the same time, you can maybe look at your own argument, and reflect where you may also be doing this.
          >
          > In terms of my graph, it's interesting that you pick this up, as on your thread explaining why we'll never reach 2C I was unsure that your statement "We've only had 0.6C of warming" was accurate. Here's a link to another graph showing how temperatures have increased:
          >
          > http://simpleclimate.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/julytemp.jpg
          >
          > Do you have the evidence showing that the 30s and 40s had higher rates of record highs and lows to hand (ie can you dig it out and link to it)? It's definitely worth remembering that the world cooled 0.3C in four years around 1970, covered in last week's Nature (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7314/full/nature09394.html), but that doesn't discount the fact it's been rapidly warming in more recent years. My instinct is that the criticisms of this graph are just a way to ignore the main message here: but in the spirit of the article, if you provide the evidence (referring to sources), I'll try and overcome my "confirmation bias".
          >
          > I find your comments about every single climatologist being tainted very hard to believe. Nothing is ever that clear cut. And even if they are, they have been created by a society that we have more-or-less democratically assembled together. If you are right, it asks some serious questions about the way we live today.
          >
          > It's also interesting that you react with such hostility to this post: I've also received a somewhat cold reception from more pro-AGW people, I guess because asking people whether their ideas are really accurate is never welcome. It's generally good practice to question your own beliefs every once in a while, though, I feel.
          >
          > Also, if you felt like making these comments directly on my site, you'd be more than welcome! That way I might be more inclined to give proper answers to all your points.
          >
          > As an aside, do you know of any scientists that you trust on paleoclimate matters? You may have seen a report extrapolating from the last interglacial to the current warming. It seems to come up with conclusions that are so extreme even I find them hard to accept. I'd like to get some comments from some independent scientists to gain context - so any suggestions would be welcome.
          >
          > Cheers,
          > Andy
          >
          > http://simpleclimate.wordpress.com/
          >
          >
          > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "lloydb" <poitsplace@> wrote:
          > >
          > > The way this has been approached creates part of the problem. You'll notice once again the complete lack of an actual sensitivity. There's a GUESS. They talk about the concentration being about as high as it was 40 million years ago...but fail to point out that it was almost without question more that the temperature that was driving up CO2.
          > >
          > > Your graph of record temperature rates also has a serious flaw...first it misses the 1930s and 1940s (which had higher rates) and ignores the fact that while they do adjust for the urban heat island effect in the GLOBAL temperature record...they DO NOT adjust for it in the local records.These local records almost certainly have a disproportionately large number of poorly cited stations. OBVIOUSLY a paved parking lot in a concrete jungle is going to have higher temperatures than than the grassy field that was once there.
          > >
          > > So right there you can see two examples of the very thing the article is complaining about that are within the article its self and from "experts". Climatology has been tainted by a socio-political movement. Every last one of the budding "climatologists" going through school right now has had their heads lots and lots of propaganda. This is the greatest failure of the science in the history of the sciences. They're not 100% wrong but even on the things they manage to get right...they get the impacts wrong...so they're pushing pretty close to complete failure.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "HappyChopperRecords" <happychopperrecords@> wrote:
          > > >
          > > > Australian researchers have written about how only listening to evidence that supports your own outlook leads to a distorted view this month. Talking directly to scientists studying climate change and its impacts can reduce these biases. Read more at: http://wp.me/pLahN-h5
          > > >
          > >
          >





          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • lloydb
          The problem is that the vast majority of climate scientists is in fact...a vanishingly small number. When asked about the IPCC s figures of 2500 scientists
          Message 4 of 8 , Oct 28, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            The problem is that the "vast majority of climate scientists" is in fact...a vanishingly small number. When asked about the IPCC's figures of 2500 scientists it turned out that most were policy makers and only about 80 scientists had ANY connection at all to climate research (of course, many of those were geologists, biologists, etc).

            The climategate emails make it clear beyond all doubt...A tiny number of climate scientists were APPOINTED (through political processes) to positions that made them the defacto "top climate scientists". Most of the original GOOD (unwilling to show bias) scientists were driven out of the system inadvertently by the political processes. From these positions the crappy scientists basically replaced their field's "peer review" with "PAL review". The emails quite literally state that they would claim articles were not fit simply because the results were inconvenient.

            This is very similar to Lysenkoism...just far more pervasive. Normally it wouldn't be quite so bad but climatology was an incredibly small and immature field...and so it was VERY easily corrupted.


            --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, John Sanderson <jlpsanderson68@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > All this is very interesting but do you really expect us to believe that the vast majority of climate scientists have somehow been brainwashed and that you and a few others are the only people who can see the truth?
            > JS
            >
            >
            >
            > To: globalwarming@yahoogroups.com
            > From: poitsplace@...
            > Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 09:24:16 +0000
            > Subject: [Global Warming] Re: But, how do we know this is right?
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > You do realize the thing you provided was January-July temperatures. That doesn't necessarily mean its the same amount of warming for the whole year. Here's the whole year's temps averaged out globally, GISS and Hadley with the satellites thrown in.
            >
            > http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:60/plot/gistemp/mean:60/plot/rss/mean:60/plot/uah/mean:60/
            >
            > Isn't it odd that your evidence of global temperatures covers only summer temperatures? Does CO2 take vacations in the winter? BTW, note how GISS has some odd deviations...a reduction of the warming in the 1940s and a deviation from all others to show continued warming since the 2000s. These tweaks have happened in the last 15 years. But anyway, ignoring all that...about .6C of warming since 1900 with GISS and .6C of warming since the 1880s with Hadley.
            >
            > I don't have the data on record highs for the 30s and 40s but I recall seeing somewhere that they were higher than the 1940s...which makes perfect sense. ALSO NOTE, there would be a statistical error in viewing it by decades anyway. The 2000s warm period plateau covers a whole decade while the plateau around the 1940s is really more like mid 1930s to mid 1940s...reducing the impact.
            >
            > As for the climatologists being tainted...its kind of an inevitable consequence of the massive propaganda push on climate change. I guess they aren't 100% tainted...there are some skeptics remaining among the teachers (often attacked for daring to suggest CO2 might not be an evil monster) but for the most part all of the people going to school now for that (you'll notice that's what I was referring to) were raised during a time when CO2 has been pushed as the single biggest "control knob" in climate.
            >
            > So who do I trust? When mistakes anywhere near this bad happen...I stop trusting and start looking at the data myself. You've been fed a load of crap on a great many things by the massive propaganda machine.
            >
            > Malaria isn't increasing, its decreasing...and we used to have bad malaria problems in the US, the largest modern outbreak was in Siberia...so OBVIOUSLY it has little to do with temperature.
            >
            > CO2 makes plant life increase...PERIOD. Yes, there are other growth limiting factors but CO2 actually removes another of them (makes plants more drought resistant)
            >
            > Crop output CLIMBS with temperature. There are already crops that grow quite well in the tropics and the tropics wouldn't warm significantly. Increasing warmth would lengthen growth seasons in all the other zones and would simply cause a shift in the types of crops grown if the temperature did somehow cause problems.
            >
            > For the most part...a warmer world would be MORE conducive to life. During the holocene and other optiumums most of the world's deserts actually retreat because of increased rainfall. About the only place it gets worse is in the western US.
            >
            > Sea levels are not rising dangerously fast...and in fact someone has recently pointed out that ground water extraction alone explains MOST of the increase in sea level rise. But even with that...sea levels will not likely be more than .2 meters higher by 2100.
            >
            > Adaptation is essentially FREE. Since the 1970s, as temperatures have risen...furnaces have needed to be replaced and have simply been replaced with heat pumps. Roads need to be resurfaced every few years so there's no point in complaining that the asphalt formulation will need to be changed. Coastal defenses were made with an understanding that sea level rise would continue as it had...so they're fine. The plants and animal populations shift with temperature anyway...and almost every species alive lived through the holocene optimum (man is impacting them in other ways though).
            >
            > The seasonal "surplus deaths" show up IN THE WINTER...and the increase is HUGE. People ramble on stupidly (yes, its pretty stupid) about how horrible the heat waves were in europe with *gasp* 30000 excess deaths for ALL of europe. BUT the excess winter deaths for germany are greater than that number. The excess winter deaths for the UK are greater than that. The excess winter deaths in the US dwarf that figure (although they're just proportional to population). There is a reason people retire to WARMER climates!
            >
            > So yeah...I get really pissed off when I hear a line of BS propaganda telling us that 2C of warming is going to kill vast numbers of people...because its a load of crap. When people finally realize how badly they've been misinformed, they'll probably be a lot more pissed off than me.
            >
            > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "HappyChopperRecords" <happychopperrecords@> wrote:
            > >
            > > Hi Lloyd!
            > >
            > > Thanks for engaging!
            > >
            > > Can I once again request that you provide evidence for your statements? It does sound like you've read the article, so you'll have read the point about "confirmation bias", our tendency to rely only on the evidence that backs up our own viewpoint. For me to avoid this, it would be great to know where you're getting your info from. I hope that at the same time, you can maybe look at your own argument, and reflect where you may also be doing this.
            > >
            > > In terms of my graph, it's interesting that you pick this up, as on your thread explaining why we'll never reach 2C I was unsure that your statement "We've only had 0.6C of warming" was accurate. Here's a link to another graph showing how temperatures have increased:
            > >
            > > http://simpleclimate.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/julytemp.jpg
            > >
            > > Do you have the evidence showing that the 30s and 40s had higher rates of record highs and lows to hand (ie can you dig it out and link to it)? It's definitely worth remembering that the world cooled 0.3C in four years around 1970, covered in last week's Nature (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7314/full/nature09394.html), but that doesn't discount the fact it's been rapidly warming in more recent years. My instinct is that the criticisms of this graph are just a way to ignore the main message here: but in the spirit of the article, if you provide the evidence (referring to sources), I'll try and overcome my "confirmation bias".
            > >
            > > I find your comments about every single climatologist being tainted very hard to believe. Nothing is ever that clear cut. And even if they are, they have been created by a society that we have more-or-less democratically assembled together. If you are right, it asks some serious questions about the way we live today.
            > >
            > > It's also interesting that you react with such hostility to this post: I've also received a somewhat cold reception from more pro-AGW people, I guess because asking people whether their ideas are really accurate is never welcome. It's generally good practice to question your own beliefs every once in a while, though, I feel.
            > >
            > > Also, if you felt like making these comments directly on my site, you'd be more than welcome! That way I might be more inclined to give proper answers to all your points.
            > >
            > > As an aside, do you know of any scientists that you trust on paleoclimate matters? You may have seen a report extrapolating from the last interglacial to the current warming. It seems to come up with conclusions that are so extreme even I find them hard to accept. I'd like to get some comments from some independent scientists to gain context - so any suggestions would be welcome.
            > >
            > > Cheers,
            > > Andy
            > >
            > > http://simpleclimate.wordpress.com/
            > >
            > >
            > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "lloydb" <poitsplace@> wrote:
            > > >
            > > > The way this has been approached creates part of the problem. You'll notice once again the complete lack of an actual sensitivity. There's a GUESS. They talk about the concentration being about as high as it was 40 million years ago...but fail to point out that it was almost without question more that the temperature that was driving up CO2.
            > > >
            > > > Your graph of record temperature rates also has a serious flaw...first it misses the 1930s and 1940s (which had higher rates) and ignores the fact that while they do adjust for the urban heat island effect in the GLOBAL temperature record...they DO NOT adjust for it in the local records.These local records almost certainly have a disproportionately large number of poorly cited stations. OBVIOUSLY a paved parking lot in a concrete jungle is going to have higher temperatures than than the grassy field that was once there.
            > > >
            > > > So right there you can see two examples of the very thing the article is complaining about that are within the article its self and from "experts". Climatology has been tainted by a socio-political movement. Every last one of the budding "climatologists" going through school right now has had their heads lots and lots of propaganda. This is the greatest failure of the science in the history of the sciences. They're not 100% wrong but even on the things they manage to get right...they get the impacts wrong...so they're pushing pretty close to complete failure.
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "HappyChopperRecords" <happychopperrecords@> wrote:
            > > > >
            > > > > Australian researchers have written about how only listening to evidence that supports your own outlook leads to a distorted view this month. Talking directly to scientists studying climate change and its impacts can reduce these biases. Read more at: http://wp.me/pLahN-h5
            > > > >
            > > >
            > >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
          • HappyChopperRecords
            Citation on the scientist number please? Is it from a reputable source? Let s not forget the Anderegg, Schneider et al paper from June that showed that, of
            Message 5 of 8 , Nov 10, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              Citation on the scientist number please? Is it from a reputable source? Let's not forget the Anderegg, Schneider et al paper from June that showed that, of 1,372 climate researchers who had written more than 20 papers on the subject, 97–98% of the most active credit humanity's role. I blogged it at http://wp.me/pLahN-9W

              --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "lloydb" <poitsplace@...> wrote:
              >
              > The problem is that the "vast majority of climate scientists" is in fact...a vanishingly small number. When asked about the IPCC's figures of 2500 scientists it turned out that most were policy makers and only about 80 scientists had ANY connection at all to climate research (of course, many of those were geologists, biologists, etc).
              >
              > The climategate emails make it clear beyond all doubt...A tiny number of climate scientists were APPOINTED (through political processes) to positions that made them the defacto "top climate scientists". Most of the original GOOD (unwilling to show bias) scientists were driven out of the system inadvertently by the political processes. From these positions the crappy scientists basically replaced their field's "peer review" with "PAL review". The emails quite literally state that they would claim articles were not fit simply because the results were inconvenient.
              >
              > This is very similar to Lysenkoism...just far more pervasive. Normally it wouldn't be quite so bad but climatology was an incredibly small and immature field...and so it was VERY easily corrupted.
              >
              >
              > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, John Sanderson <jlpsanderson68@> wrote:
              > >
              > >
              > > All this is very interesting but do you really expect us to believe that the vast majority of climate scientists have somehow been brainwashed and that you and a few others are the only people who can see the truth?
              > > JS
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > To: globalwarming@yahoogroups.com
              > > From: poitsplace@
              > > Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 09:24:16 +0000
              > > Subject: [Global Warming] Re: But, how do we know this is right?
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > You do realize the thing you provided was January-July temperatures. That doesn't necessarily mean its the same amount of warming for the whole year. Here's the whole year's temps averaged out globally, GISS and Hadley with the satellites thrown in.
              > >
              > > http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:60/plot/gistemp/mean:60/plot/rss/mean:60/plot/uah/mean:60/
              > >
              > > Isn't it odd that your evidence of global temperatures covers only summer temperatures? Does CO2 take vacations in the winter? BTW, note how GISS has some odd deviations...a reduction of the warming in the 1940s and a deviation from all others to show continued warming since the 2000s. These tweaks have happened in the last 15 years. But anyway, ignoring all that...about .6C of warming since 1900 with GISS and .6C of warming since the 1880s with Hadley.
              > >
              > > I don't have the data on record highs for the 30s and 40s but I recall seeing somewhere that they were higher than the 1940s...which makes perfect sense. ALSO NOTE, there would be a statistical error in viewing it by decades anyway. The 2000s warm period plateau covers a whole decade while the plateau around the 1940s is really more like mid 1930s to mid 1940s...reducing the impact.
              > >
              > > As for the climatologists being tainted...its kind of an inevitable consequence of the massive propaganda push on climate change. I guess they aren't 100% tainted...there are some skeptics remaining among the teachers (often attacked for daring to suggest CO2 might not be an evil monster) but for the most part all of the people going to school now for that (you'll notice that's what I was referring to) were raised during a time when CO2 has been pushed as the single biggest "control knob" in climate.
              > >
              > > So who do I trust? When mistakes anywhere near this bad happen...I stop trusting and start looking at the data myself. You've been fed a load of crap on a great many things by the massive propaganda machine.
              > >
              > > Malaria isn't increasing, its decreasing...and we used to have bad malaria problems in the US, the largest modern outbreak was in Siberia...so OBVIOUSLY it has little to do with temperature.
              > >
              > > CO2 makes plant life increase...PERIOD. Yes, there are other growth limiting factors but CO2 actually removes another of them (makes plants more drought resistant)
              > >
              > > Crop output CLIMBS with temperature. There are already crops that grow quite well in the tropics and the tropics wouldn't warm significantly. Increasing warmth would lengthen growth seasons in all the other zones and would simply cause a shift in the types of crops grown if the temperature did somehow cause problems.
              > >
              > > For the most part...a warmer world would be MORE conducive to life. During the holocene and other optiumums most of the world's deserts actually retreat because of increased rainfall. About the only place it gets worse is in the western US.
              > >
              > > Sea levels are not rising dangerously fast...and in fact someone has recently pointed out that ground water extraction alone explains MOST of the increase in sea level rise. But even with that...sea levels will not likely be more than .2 meters higher by 2100.
              > >
              > > Adaptation is essentially FREE. Since the 1970s, as temperatures have risen...furnaces have needed to be replaced and have simply been replaced with heat pumps. Roads need to be resurfaced every few years so there's no point in complaining that the asphalt formulation will need to be changed. Coastal defenses were made with an understanding that sea level rise would continue as it had...so they're fine. The plants and animal populations shift with temperature anyway...and almost every species alive lived through the holocene optimum (man is impacting them in other ways though).
              > >
              > > The seasonal "surplus deaths" show up IN THE WINTER...and the increase is HUGE. People ramble on stupidly (yes, its pretty stupid) about how horrible the heat waves were in europe with *gasp* 30000 excess deaths for ALL of europe. BUT the excess winter deaths for germany are greater than that number. The excess winter deaths for the UK are greater than that. The excess winter deaths in the US dwarf that figure (although they're just proportional to population). There is a reason people retire to WARMER climates!
              > >
              > > So yeah...I get really pissed off when I hear a line of BS propaganda telling us that 2C of warming is going to kill vast numbers of people...because its a load of crap. When people finally realize how badly they've been misinformed, they'll probably be a lot more pissed off than me.
              > >
              > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "HappyChopperRecords" <happychopperrecords@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > Hi Lloyd!
              > > >
              > > > Thanks for engaging!
              > > >
              > > > Can I once again request that you provide evidence for your statements? It does sound like you've read the article, so you'll have read the point about "confirmation bias", our tendency to rely only on the evidence that backs up our own viewpoint. For me to avoid this, it would be great to know where you're getting your info from. I hope that at the same time, you can maybe look at your own argument, and reflect where you may also be doing this.
              > > >
              > > > In terms of my graph, it's interesting that you pick this up, as on your thread explaining why we'll never reach 2C I was unsure that your statement "We've only had 0.6C of warming" was accurate. Here's a link to another graph showing how temperatures have increased:
              > > >
              > > > http://simpleclimate.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/julytemp.jpg
              > > >
              > > > Do you have the evidence showing that the 30s and 40s had higher rates of record highs and lows to hand (ie can you dig it out and link to it)? It's definitely worth remembering that the world cooled 0.3C in four years around 1970, covered in last week's Nature (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7314/full/nature09394.html), but that doesn't discount the fact it's been rapidly warming in more recent years. My instinct is that the criticisms of this graph are just a way to ignore the main message here: but in the spirit of the article, if you provide the evidence (referring to sources), I'll try and overcome my "confirmation bias".
              > > >
              > > > I find your comments about every single climatologist being tainted very hard to believe. Nothing is ever that clear cut. And even if they are, they have been created by a society that we have more-or-less democratically assembled together. If you are right, it asks some serious questions about the way we live today.
              > > >
              > > > It's also interesting that you react with such hostility to this post: I've also received a somewhat cold reception from more pro-AGW people, I guess because asking people whether their ideas are really accurate is never welcome. It's generally good practice to question your own beliefs every once in a while, though, I feel.
              > > >
              > > > Also, if you felt like making these comments directly on my site, you'd be more than welcome! That way I might be more inclined to give proper answers to all your points.
              > > >
              > > > As an aside, do you know of any scientists that you trust on paleoclimate matters? You may have seen a report extrapolating from the last interglacial to the current warming. It seems to come up with conclusions that are so extreme even I find them hard to accept. I'd like to get some comments from some independent scientists to gain context - so any suggestions would be welcome.
              > > >
              > > > Cheers,
              > > > Andy
              > > >
              > > > http://simpleclimate.wordpress.com/
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "lloydb" <poitsplace@> wrote:
              > > > >
              > > > > The way this has been approached creates part of the problem. You'll notice once again the complete lack of an actual sensitivity. There's a GUESS. They talk about the concentration being about as high as it was 40 million years ago...but fail to point out that it was almost without question more that the temperature that was driving up CO2.
              > > > >
              > > > > Your graph of record temperature rates also has a serious flaw...first it misses the 1930s and 1940s (which had higher rates) and ignores the fact that while they do adjust for the urban heat island effect in the GLOBAL temperature record...they DO NOT adjust for it in the local records.These local records almost certainly have a disproportionately large number of poorly cited stations. OBVIOUSLY a paved parking lot in a concrete jungle is going to have higher temperatures than than the grassy field that was once there.
              > > > >
              > > > > So right there you can see two examples of the very thing the article is complaining about that are within the article its self and from "experts". Climatology has been tainted by a socio-political movement. Every last one of the budding "climatologists" going through school right now has had their heads lots and lots of propaganda. This is the greatest failure of the science in the history of the sciences. They're not 100% wrong but even on the things they manage to get right...they get the impacts wrong...so they're pushing pretty close to complete failure.
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "HappyChopperRecords" <happychopperrecords@> wrote:
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Australian researchers have written about how only listening to evidence that supports your own outlook leads to a distorted view this month. Talking directly to scientists studying climate change and its impacts can reduce these biases. Read more at: http://wp.me/pLahN-h5
              > > > > >
              > > > >
              > > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              > >
              >
            • lloydb
              Why no, it wasn t a reputable source...it was from the head of the IPCC :D But even though I don t trust him as far as I can comfortably spit out a dead
              Message 6 of 8 , Nov 10, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Why no, it wasn't a "reputable" source...it was from the head of the IPCC :D But even though I don't trust him as far as I can comfortably spit out a dead rat...I'll trust him when he says 80 of those listed as "scientists" have any real knowledge of climate...as that number sounds about right.

                --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "HappyChopperRecords" <happychopperrecords@...> wrote:
                >
                > Citation on the scientist number please? Is it from a reputable source? Let's not forget the Anderegg, Schneider et al paper from June that showed that, of 1,372 climate researchers who had written more than 20 papers on the subject, 97�98% of the most active credit humanity's role. I blogged it at http://wp.me/pLahN-9W
                >
                > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "lloydb" <poitsplace@> wrote:
                > >
                > > The problem is that the "vast majority of climate scientists" is in fact...a vanishingly small number. When asked about the IPCC's figures of 2500 scientists it turned out that most were policy makers and only about 80 scientists had ANY connection at all to climate research (of course, many of those were geologists, biologists, etc).
                > >
                > > The climategate emails make it clear beyond all doubt...A tiny number of climate scientists were APPOINTED (through political processes) to positions that made them the defacto "top climate scientists". Most of the original GOOD (unwilling to show bias) scientists were driven out of the system inadvertently by the political processes. From these positions the crappy scientists basically replaced their field's "peer review" with "PAL review". The emails quite literally state that they would claim articles were not fit simply because the results were inconvenient.
                > >
                > > This is very similar to Lysenkoism...just far more pervasive. Normally it wouldn't be quite so bad but climatology was an incredibly small and immature field...and so it was VERY easily corrupted.
                > >
                > >
                > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, John Sanderson <jlpsanderson68@> wrote:
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > All this is very interesting but do you really expect us to believe that the vast majority of climate scientists have somehow been brainwashed and that you and a few others are the only people who can see the truth?
                > > > JS
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > To: globalwarming@yahoogroups.com
                > > > From: poitsplace@
                > > > Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 09:24:16 +0000
                > > > Subject: [Global Warming] Re: But, how do we know this is right?
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > You do realize the thing you provided was January-July temperatures. That doesn't necessarily mean its the same amount of warming for the whole year. Here's the whole year's temps averaged out globally, GISS and Hadley with the satellites thrown in.
                > > >
                > > > http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:60/plot/gistemp/mean:60/plot/rss/mean:60/plot/uah/mean:60/
                > > >
                > > > Isn't it odd that your evidence of global temperatures covers only summer temperatures? Does CO2 take vacations in the winter? BTW, note how GISS has some odd deviations...a reduction of the warming in the 1940s and a deviation from all others to show continued warming since the 2000s. These tweaks have happened in the last 15 years. But anyway, ignoring all that...about .6C of warming since 1900 with GISS and .6C of warming since the 1880s with Hadley.
                > > >
                > > > I don't have the data on record highs for the 30s and 40s but I recall seeing somewhere that they were higher than the 1940s...which makes perfect sense. ALSO NOTE, there would be a statistical error in viewing it by decades anyway. The 2000s warm period plateau covers a whole decade while the plateau around the 1940s is really more like mid 1930s to mid 1940s...reducing the impact.
                > > >
                > > > As for the climatologists being tainted...its kind of an inevitable consequence of the massive propaganda push on climate change. I guess they aren't 100% tainted...there are some skeptics remaining among the teachers (often attacked for daring to suggest CO2 might not be an evil monster) but for the most part all of the people going to school now for that (you'll notice that's what I was referring to) were raised during a time when CO2 has been pushed as the single biggest "control knob" in climate.
                > > >
                > > > So who do I trust? When mistakes anywhere near this bad happen...I stop trusting and start looking at the data myself. You've been fed a load of crap on a great many things by the massive propaganda machine.
                > > >
                > > > Malaria isn't increasing, its decreasing...and we used to have bad malaria problems in the US, the largest modern outbreak was in Siberia...so OBVIOUSLY it has little to do with temperature.
                > > >
                > > > CO2 makes plant life increase...PERIOD. Yes, there are other growth limiting factors but CO2 actually removes another of them (makes plants more drought resistant)
                > > >
                > > > Crop output CLIMBS with temperature. There are already crops that grow quite well in the tropics and the tropics wouldn't warm significantly. Increasing warmth would lengthen growth seasons in all the other zones and would simply cause a shift in the types of crops grown if the temperature did somehow cause problems.
                > > >
                > > > For the most part...a warmer world would be MORE conducive to life. During the holocene and other optiumums most of the world's deserts actually retreat because of increased rainfall. About the only place it gets worse is in the western US.
                > > >
                > > > Sea levels are not rising dangerously fast...and in fact someone has recently pointed out that ground water extraction alone explains MOST of the increase in sea level rise. But even with that...sea levels will not likely be more than .2 meters higher by 2100.
                > > >
                > > > Adaptation is essentially FREE. Since the 1970s, as temperatures have risen...furnaces have needed to be replaced and have simply been replaced with heat pumps. Roads need to be resurfaced every few years so there's no point in complaining that the asphalt formulation will need to be changed. Coastal defenses were made with an understanding that sea level rise would continue as it had...so they're fine. The plants and animal populations shift with temperature anyway...and almost every species alive lived through the holocene optimum (man is impacting them in other ways though).
                > > >
                > > > The seasonal "surplus deaths" show up IN THE WINTER...and the increase is HUGE. People ramble on stupidly (yes, its pretty stupid) about how horrible the heat waves were in europe with *gasp* 30000 excess deaths for ALL of europe. BUT the excess winter deaths for germany are greater than that number. The excess winter deaths for the UK are greater than that. The excess winter deaths in the US dwarf that figure (although they're just proportional to population). There is a reason people retire to WARMER climates!
                > > >
                > > > So yeah...I get really pissed off when I hear a line of BS propaganda telling us that 2C of warming is going to kill vast numbers of people...because its a load of crap. When people finally realize how badly they've been misinformed, they'll probably be a lot more pissed off than me.
                > > >
                > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "HappyChopperRecords" <happychopperrecords@> wrote:
                > > > >
                > > > > Hi Lloyd!
                > > > >
                > > > > Thanks for engaging!
                > > > >
                > > > > Can I once again request that you provide evidence for your statements? It does sound like you've read the article, so you'll have read the point about "confirmation bias", our tendency to rely only on the evidence that backs up our own viewpoint. For me to avoid this, it would be great to know where you're getting your info from. I hope that at the same time, you can maybe look at your own argument, and reflect where you may also be doing this.
                > > > >
                > > > > In terms of my graph, it's interesting that you pick this up, as on your thread explaining why we'll never reach 2C I was unsure that your statement "We've only had 0.6C of warming" was accurate. Here's a link to another graph showing how temperatures have increased:
                > > > >
                > > > > http://simpleclimate.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/julytemp.jpg
                > > > >
                > > > > Do you have the evidence showing that the 30s and 40s had higher rates of record highs and lows to hand (ie can you dig it out and link to it)? It's definitely worth remembering that the world cooled 0.3C in four years around 1970, covered in last week's Nature (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7314/full/nature09394.html), but that doesn't discount the fact it's been rapidly warming in more recent years. My instinct is that the criticisms of this graph are just a way to ignore the main message here: but in the spirit of the article, if you provide the evidence (referring to sources), I'll try and overcome my "confirmation bias".
                > > > >
                > > > > I find your comments about every single climatologist being tainted very hard to believe. Nothing is ever that clear cut. And even if they are, they have been created by a society that we have more-or-less democratically assembled together. If you are right, it asks some serious questions about the way we live today.
                > > > >
                > > > > It's also interesting that you react with such hostility to this post: I've also received a somewhat cold reception from more pro-AGW people, I guess because asking people whether their ideas are really accurate is never welcome. It's generally good practice to question your own beliefs every once in a while, though, I feel.
                > > > >
                > > > > Also, if you felt like making these comments directly on my site, you'd be more than welcome! That way I might be more inclined to give proper answers to all your points.
                > > > >
                > > > > As an aside, do you know of any scientists that you trust on paleoclimate matters? You may have seen a report extrapolating from the last interglacial to the current warming. It seems to come up with conclusions that are so extreme even I find them hard to accept. I'd like to get some comments from some independent scientists to gain context - so any suggestions would be welcome.
                > > > >
                > > > > Cheers,
                > > > > Andy
                > > > >
                > > > > http://simpleclimate.wordpress.com/
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "lloydb" <poitsplace@> wrote:
                > > > > >
                > > > > > The way this has been approached creates part of the problem. You'll notice once again the complete lack of an actual sensitivity. There's a GUESS. They talk about the concentration being about as high as it was 40 million years ago...but fail to point out that it was almost without question more that the temperature that was driving up CO2.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Your graph of record temperature rates also has a serious flaw...first it misses the 1930s and 1940s (which had higher rates) and ignores the fact that while they do adjust for the urban heat island effect in the GLOBAL temperature record...they DO NOT adjust for it in the local records.These local records almost certainly have a disproportionately large number of poorly cited stations. OBVIOUSLY a paved parking lot in a concrete jungle is going to have higher temperatures than than the grassy field that was once there.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > So right there you can see two examples of the very thing the article is complaining about that are within the article its self and from "experts". Climatology has been tainted by a socio-political movement. Every last one of the budding "climatologists" going through school right now has had their heads lots and lots of propaganda. This is the greatest failure of the science in the history of the sciences. They're not 100% wrong but even on the things they manage to get right...they get the impacts wrong...so they're pushing pretty close to complete failure.
                > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "HappyChopperRecords" <happychopperrecords@> wrote:
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > Australian researchers have written about how only listening to evidence that supports your own outlook leads to a distorted view this month. Talking directly to scientists studying climate change and its impacts can reduce these biases. Read more at: http://wp.me/pLahN-h5
                > > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                > > >
                > >
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.