Your right to speak continued….

This is my response to the user named Bill Walsh. Which if this wasn’t a world filled with greedy and or ignorant people this would be a nice utopia but unfortunately we are filled with a world of deceptively evil and wicked people and also ignorant people, the two are not always seperate!

Bill Walsh,
This pissing match will end, when the other side steps down from trying to get rich off cap and trade over something that has yet to be proven concisely beyond a shadow of a doubt.

We as humans stand accused of currently putting 30,000 metric square tonnes (MST) into the atmosphere and that is 2ppm of the current overall atmosphere.
Over the next 99 years they say that the current 387ppm of current CO2 levels will rise to 487 and we will get a big whopping .065C increase in temperature and you put the math together and leave out the bs FORTRAN code and the bs tree rings and that means in order to get to a 0% footprint of CO2 it would take 33 years of no humans and no animals on earth to change 1C degree of temperature. Where would you like to volunteer to go? I hear Mars, the Moon, and Venus have nice low level gas emissions in their greenhouse effect, minimal CO2 levels? 33 years with no animals or humans.

I offer my opposites hand in peace and he spits on it and wants to install cap and trade. Spain has cap and trade and businesses are leaving that country right and left and in less than a year now they have a 21% unemployment rate. Greece? You wanna talk hands across the water?

When people like Jones, Mann, Briffa et al. stop lying in the name of their plush chairs and cushy offices at the tune of 1.7 trillion American taxpayers dollars I will hold my hand out and keep it out despite the knife slashes and spitting aimed in its direction.

Your right to speak your mind is safe here! As long as I have breath and I have liberty!

This post is in response to someone who goes by Tamino
I am including my comments here because he erased my 7 other comments. I don’t know why, but I know my comments were just the truth and not insulting and I didn’t even use anyone’s name. Although he allows everyone in the world in insult Anthony Watts and others who stem the tide against the insanity known as Anthropogenic Global warming (AGW) or to be precice Anthrophogenic Catastrophic Global Warming even though they don’t like that moniker they’re always trying to push a new catastrophy onto and present it as being caused by (AGW)
While I am not for anyone getting violent, nor am I for anyone violating anyone’s expectancy of privacy, I refuse to stand down from my God given right to speak my mind. Diatribe? maybe. Coward? never. Red blooded American who’s tired of people taking my tax money for things I don’t agree with and then expecting to pat me on the head like a dumb little pet? heck no a million times no!

These comments are aimed more towards Tamino and others like him than towards Bill Walsh, I’m just commenting to the crowd at Tamino et al. .

I will start with Bills Comments and then make a seperate post for mine. Keep in mind this whole thing is in response to a person who has used agressive tactics previously as a wanna be journalist, who has no press credentials, who showed up one day at Mr. Anthony Watts place of business and demanded he answer her questions and started a shouting match as she was escorted off the premises. Mr. Watts would have been well within his rights to have her arrested but he is a good man who doesn’t stand for nonsense on his blog and because of this woman has done this now people on Tamino’s site are insulting Watts as they so often do when they can’t create an intelligent argument and Mr. Tamino wouldn’t allow any of my comments on his blog, they were much kinder and gentler than the ones here on my blog!

• Bill Walsh // June 8, 2010 at 4:51 pm | Reply
Ben,
Though I don’t agree with much of what Mr. Watts has to say, just like I tire of the hyperbole from the AGW crowd, his blog is NOTHING remotely the same as yelling “fire” in a theater. That comparison is more of the same over the top rhetoric. Nobody is in direct harm nor fearing for their lives due to the actions of Watts. You have a choice. Believe him, or don’t, or take the bits and pieces for what they are worth, but it is not equal to criminal endangerment and inciting panic. Simply ignore him if that suits you. You don’t have the same choice sitting unaware in a public place.
I have to ask, when is this pissing match going to end? Why can’t we simply get to the point where we decide to simply take better care of the planet regardless of CO2, or a few degrees here or there? I suspect Mr. Watts likes clean water and air, just like you and I. Is it so hard to put aside political and ideological agendas to meet somewhere in the middle? Less doom and fear from one side and a simple admission that we need to be better people from the other?
Watts calling out Tamino and Eli for being unpatriotic? Some idiot going to Watts’ house to berate him in person? Where does it end? When it escalates to something physical–and from what I read that doesn’t seem far off–then what?
This debate is getting uglier and uglier by the day. Sad really, because not a damn thing is going to get done that is positive with the state of the discussion being what it is–circular. It has become just another arm of the BS partisan political world we have become

reply to comments at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/30/ken-cuccinelli-versus-810-academics/

I just don’t think people are getting what is going on here.
They are trying to take our freedom and independance and soveriegnty all in the name of carbon excess when it’s neither driving temperature, nor is temperature a concern according to the data when you remove the biases from Jones and Hansen.

****June 1, 2010 at 12:01 am
he (Mann)has lied to the US Senate while speaking in the US Senate. This should be turned over to a Federal Special Investigator who would have blanket investigative priviledge. Since Michael Mann has pushed his crap as truth to the Federal Government it falls under the US Freedom of information act and has pull over anything the idiots at at University of Virginia or Penn state want to hold onto.
If there’s nothing to worry about why are they fighting so hard to keep the truth from coming out.
Who was the idiot earlier that made a comment about we wouldn’t want the democrats going after Dr. Lindzen?

Bullpucky, if a scientist is doing something that is lying to the US Senate and potentially costing tax payers trillions in taxes and higher unemployment ratings and payouts I would want him hung out to dry no matter what side of the scale he was on.

However to use Professor Lindzen he has been ostracized, insulted and maligned for simply standing up to the CRU boys and others who insist on slinging the same cow pucky against the wall and insisting it’s valid science.
This is getting back to the same red herring that was used when Bill Clinton perjured himself before the US Senate. The liberals threw out the red herring of “What happens in a man’s bedroom is his business… Well first of all he didn’t do it in his bedroom he did it in the Oval office and a million other places and the main fact is he perjured himself on more that one occasion to the US Senate, which is an offense punishable by impeachment and possible jail time.

This is a similar issue… Friends of Jones and Mann have said in Britain that they were merely using colloquialisms in the Crutape emails. BS let’s call a spade a spade, they were violating US and Britain freedom of information acts which is a violation of Federal Law in the US and not sure what in Britain. They were also guilty of violating numerous step of scientific method to make their hypotheses meet their desired outcome. This mis-information was then fed to the US Government for them to make their decisions on climate change which potentially can cost tax payers trillions of unnecessary taxes. That is worth of RICO act charges.

You people keep missing the importance of this to the future of science and politics in America. How can we trust Academia to govern itself when it has showed on multiple occasions that it has violated the letter of science and violated federal laws on at least two continents? How can we trust Academia to govern itself and make a non biased opinion when time after time they have showed an old boy school mentality and scrubbed each other’s messes and watched each other’s backs on numerous occasions. I mean for crying outloud they kept a perfectly good paper from being Peer reviewed in their vaunted journals and conspired to fire a perfectly good journal editor.
Come on people you are still falling for their red herrings hook line and sinker!
Wake up and see this for what it is.
I feel like I’m waiving a red flag because a child just had their throat slit and blood is gushing out of their veins and they are losing their life and everyone is trying to put a bandaid on her toe because she has a wart on her toe.
Maybe some of you are too close to this as scientists to see what this really is all about and maybe you need to step back from your bunson burners and take a look at the whole picture!

A fellow person of reason and intellect

There are more and more people getting angry and upset over the intentional falsehoods, and misdeeds that the side of Warming alarmists is perpetrating on the global population.
There are ordinary citizens like myself and over 31,000 scientists who have signed the Petition against global warming. The alarmists have tried to knock it down and destroy its importance but they have failed.
The following link does an excellent job of pointing out just how full of deceit and trickery the alarmist side is. They have to be, they have millions in contracts, taxes, and grant funding at stake if they give up the fight. Ahh… but our side has much more at stake if we give up, truth, our heritage, our sanity, our pocket book and our sovereignty to a global governance (read government).

James Hoggan, The Spin doctor spinnin his spin

I am apalled at how James Hoggan acts like a climate expert and exerts his huffy point of view as a spin doctor aka “PR expert” and people follow his swill hook line and sinker. Read the following post in a Canadian online newspaper, then read my reply.

May 28, 2010
James Hoggan.Co-founder desmogblog.com
Posted: May 6, 2010 02:39 PM Freak April Rain Showers Hit Canadian Arctic

While the Gulf of Mexico continues to choke on oil from a man-made disaster, the Arctic is experiencing another form of man-made onslaught thanks to climate change.

Late last month, British explorers hiking in the Canadian Arctic reported that their ice base off Ellef Ringnes Island had been hit by a three-minute rain shower. A team of Canadian scientists camped about 145 km west also reported being hit by rain at the same time.

Pen Hadow, the British team’s expedition director, told Reuters, “It’s definitely a shocker … the general feeling within the polar community is that rainfall in the high Canadian Arctic in April is a freak event.”

Hadow, whose team is gathering data on the effects of climate change on the Arctic Ocean in the Catlin Arctic Survey, said that “scientists would tell us that we can expect increasingly to experience these sorts of outcomes as the climate warms.” But the group was not expecting such a sudden reminder of the consequences of a warming Arctic.

Ice base manager Paul Ramsden said, “It is obviously quite worrying when you are camped out on ice. I felt distinctly nervous for a while because the consequences of getting wet here can be serious.”

And the rain isn’t the only indicator that things are out of whack in the North.

Reuters reports: “Hadow said the team carrying out the carbon dioxide experiments had noticed that ice was abnormally thin and was moving around more than they expected. The winds were stronger than usual.”

Tyler Fish, another team member, told CBC that “We worry that if it’s too warm maybe some of the scientific samples will start to thaw … or the food will get too warm and spoil.”

“We have been told there will be more unpredicted events like this as the climate of the region warms. Our team up there have already reported many locals people at Resolute have also been commenting on the unusual warmth of the winter this year,” Pen Hadow added.

The Arctic is heating up three times more quickly than the rest of the Earth, and scientists have linked the higher temperatures to global warming pollution.

Scientists working in the Arctic say the thick multiyear ice covering the Arctic Ocean has essentially vanished, and U.S. data shows the 2009 ice cover was the third-lowest on record, after 2007 and 2008.

David Phillips, senior climatologist with Environment Canada, described the freak rain in the High Arctic in April as “really bizarre,” noting that 50 to 60 years of historical weather data show no signs of rainfall ever occurring in April in the High Arctic.

“My business is weird, wild and wacky weather, and this is up there among fish falling from the sky or Niagara Falls running dry,” Phillips told CBC News.
here is the link to go respond yourself –
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-hoggan/freak-april-rain-showers_b_566425.html#postComment

My Response to Mr. Hoggan:Yes a thousand times yes…. As Steve 41 said in his response to Mr. Hoggan, this indeed is, a perfect example of the difference between weather and climate. If you look at the HAD/CRUT temperature findings rather than the temp’s posted by Phil Jones from the CRU which put out extremely twisted and falsified records, proven time and again in dozens of articles and peer reviewed documents, the weather is actually cooling globally not warming, and has been since the beginning of the 21st Century.
Don’t let Hoggan fool you, he’s not a science expert, his only training in global warming admittedly on the back cover of his book comes from Al Gore. He also happens to sit on Al Gore’s Canadian version of “The Climate Project”. His website doesn’t focus on the science it slings mud, Ad Homonyms, and Red Herrings at perfectly good scientists in order to remove focus from the facts which are that global warming is a myth. That is his day job after all, he’s a famous PR man. By the way, this is not an Ad homonym as it is telling the direct truth that’s in print and mentioned in Mr. Hoggan’s book by James himself.
Does the climate change on Earth? Yes of course it does, always has and always will.
Is there a catastrophic change on the way? Not in the form of warming.
While there was this freak rainstorm in Canada, there was about 6 feet of freak snow showers dumped in Utah, in numerous places, this spring. That’s very freakish. The Pacific Northwest United States, where I live, has been very much colder, and wetter than normal this spring.
Let’s focus on real facts here. Oh and while we’re focused on facts, let’s set the facts straight about Arctic temperature modeling in Canada to the East or Alaska to the West, shall we?
First of all we’ve only been able to get absolute scientific data from this area faithfully and accurately for this area for about the last 25-30 years maximum not 50+ as Mr. Hoggan states. This is such a remote area that short of one or two thermometers which DOES NOT denote a scientific data base There was no real scientific study before really the last 20 years, when the global warming scare drummed up millions in grants for those willing to look for signs of imminent warming.
Secondly let’s look at the fact that from Hudson’s Bay West to the Alaskan border it has been so cold and so icy for the last 5 years, that the Fish and Game biologist team that follows Polar bears tell us that 2 of 4 Hudson Bay Polar bear herds have been on the down-cline. It has been so cold, their main staple, seals, have been staying out of the area, and so the PB herds are suffering because of cold temperatures on a grand scale not warming temperatures.

3 Cheers for Lord Monkton

Picture copyright: Kaisu Tai

Oxford Union Debate on Climate Catastrophe
Source: SPPI

Army of Light and Truth 135, Forces of Darkness 110
For what is believed to be the first time ever in England, an audience of university undergraduates has decisively rejected the notion that “global warming” is or could become a global crisis. The only previous defeat for climate extremism among an undergraduate audience was at St. Andrew’s University, Scotland, in the spring of 2009, when the climate extremists were defeated by three votes.

Last week, members of the historic Oxford Union Society, the world’s premier debating society, carried the motion “That this House would put economic growth before combating climate change” by 135 votes to 110. The debate was sponsored by the Science and Public Policy Institute, Washington DC.

Serious observers are interpreting this shock result as a sign that students are now impatiently rejecting the relentless extremist propaganda taught under the guise of compulsory environmental-studies classes in British schools, confirming opinion-poll findings that the voters are no longer frightened by “global warming” scare stories, if they ever were.

When the Union’s president, Laura Winwood, announced the result in the Victorian-Gothich Gladstone Room, three peers cheered with the undergraduates, and one peer drowned his sorrows in beer.

Lord Lawson of Blaby, Margaret Thatcher’s former finance minister, opened the case for the proposition by saying that the economic proposals put forward by the UN’s climate panel and its supporters did not add up. It would be better to wait and see whether the scientists had gotten it right. It was not sensible to make expensive spending commitments, particularly at a time of great economic hardship, when the effectiveness of the spending was gravely in doubt and when it might do more harm than good.

At one point, Lord Lawson was interrupted by a US student, who demanded to know what was his connection with the Science and Public Policy Institute, and what were the Institute’s sources of funding. Lord Lawson was cheered when he said he neither knew nor cared who funded the Institute.

Ms. Zara McGlone, Secretary of the Oxford Union, opposed the motion, saying that greenhouse gases had an effect [they do, but it is very small]; that the precautionary principle required immediate action, just in case and regardless of expense [but one must also bear in mind the cost of the precautions themselves, which can and often do easily exceed the cost of inaction]; that Bangladesh was sinking beneath the waves [a recent study by Prof. Niklas Moerner shows that sea level in Bangladesh has actually fallen]; that the majority of scientists believed “global warming” was a problem [she offered no evidence for this]; and that “irreversible natural destruction” would occur if we did nothing [but she did not offer any evidence].

Mr. James Delingpole, a blogger for the leading British conservative national newspaper The Daily Telegraph, seconded the proposition, saying that – politically speaking – the climate extremists had long since lost the argument. The general public simply did not buy the scare stories any more. The endless tales of Biblical disasters peddled by the alarmist faction were an unwelcome and now fortunately failed recrudescence of dull, gray Puritanism. Instead of hand-wringing and bed-wetting, we should celebrate the considerable achievements of the human race and start having fun.

Lord Whitty, a Labor peer from the trades union movement and, until recently, Labor’s Environment Minister in the Upper House, said that the world’s oil supplies were rapidly running out [in fact, record new finds have been made in the past five years]; that we needed to change our definition of economic growth to take into account the value lost when we damaged the environment [it is artificial accounting of this kind that has left Britain as bankrupt as Greece after 13 years of Labor government]; that green jobs created by governments would help to end unemployment [but Milton Friedman won his Nobel Prize for economics by demonstrating that every artificial job created at taxpayers’ expense destroys two real jobs in the wealth-producing private sector]; that humans were the cause of most of the past century’s warming [there is no evidence for that: the case is built on speculation by programmers of computer models]; that temperature today was at its highest in at least 40 million years [in fact, it was higher than today by at least 12.5 F° for most of the past 550 million years]; and that 95% of scientists believed our influence on the climate was catastrophic [no one has asked them].

Lord Monckton repeatedly interrupted Lord Whitty to ask him to give a reference in the scientific literature for his suggestion that 95% of scientists believed our influence on the climate was catastrophic. Lord Whitty was unable to provide the source for his figure, but said that everyone knew it was true. Under further pressure from Lord Monckton, Lord Whitty conceded that the figure should perhaps be 92%. Lord Monckton asked: “And your reference is?” Lord Whitty was unable to reply. Hon. Members began to join in, jeering “Your reference? Your reference?” Lord Whitty sat down looking baffled.

Lord Leach of Fairford, whom Margaret Thatcher appointed a Life Peer for his educational work, spoke third for the proposition. He said that we no longer knew whether or not there had been much “global warming” over the 20th century, because the Climategate emails had exposed the terrestrial temperature records as defective. In any event, he said, throwing good money after bad on various alternative-energy boondoggles was unlikely to prove profitable in the long term and would ultimately do harm.

Mr. Rajesh Makwana, executive director of “Share The World’s Resources”, speaking third for the opposition, said that climate change was manmade [but he did not produce any evidence for that assertion]; that CO2 emissions were growing at 3% a year [but it is concentrations, not emissions, that may in theory affect climate, and concentrations are rising at a harmless 0.5% a year]; that the UN’s climate panel had forecast a 7 F° “global warming” for the 21st century [it’s gotten off to a bad start, with a cooling of 0.2 F° so far]; and that the consequences of “global warming” would be dire [yet, in the audience, sat Mr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, whose landmark paper of 2008 had established that not one of 539 scientific papers on “global climate change” provided any evidence whatsoever that “global warming” would be catastrophic].

Lord Monckton, a former science advisor to Margaret Thatcher during her years as Prime Minister of the UK, concluded the case for the proposition. He drew immediate laughter and cheers when he described himself as “Christopher Walter, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, scholar, philanthropist, wit, man about town, and former chairman of the Wines and Spirits Committee of this honourable Society”. At that point his cummerbund came undone. He held it up to the audience and said, “If I asked this House how long this cummerbund is, you might telephone around all the manufacturers and ask them how many cummerbunds they made, and how long each type of cummerbund was, and put the data into a computer model run by a zitty teenager eating too many doughnuts, and the computer would make an expensive guess. Or you could take a tape-measure and” – glaring at the opposition across the despatch-box – “measure it!” [cheers].

Lord Monckton said that real-world measurements, as opposed to models, showed that the warming effect of CO2 was a tiny fraction of the estimates peddled by the UN’s climate panel. He said that he would take his lead from Lord Lawson, however, in concentrating on the economics rather than the science. He glared at the opposition again and demanded whether, since they had declared themselves to be so worried about “global warming”, they would care to tell him – to two places of decimals and one standard deviation – the UN’s central estimate of the “global warming” that might result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. The opposition were unable to reply. Lord Monckton told them the answer was 3.26 plus or minus 0.69 Kelvin or Celsius degrees. An Hon. Member interrupted: “And your reference is?” Lord Monckton replied: “IPCC, 2007, chapter 10, box 10.2.” [cheers]. He concluded that shutting down the entire global economy for a whole year, with all the death, destruction, disaster, disease and distress that that would cause, would forestall just 4.7 ln(390/388) = 0.024 Kelvin or Celsius degrees of “global warming”, so that total economic shutdown for 41 years would prevent just 1 K of warming. Adaptation as and if necessary would be orders of magnitude cheaper and more cost-effective.

Mr. Mike Mason, founder and managing director of “Climate Care”, concluded for the opposition. He said that the proposition were peculiar people, and that Lord Monckton was more peculiar than most, in that he was not a real Lord. Lord Monckton, on a point of order, told Mr. Mason that the proposition had avoided personalities and that if Mr. Mason were unable to argue other than ad hominem he should “get out”. [cheers] Mr. Mason then said that we had to prepare for climate risks [yes, in both directions, towards cooler as well as warmer]; and that there was a “scientific consensus” [but he offered no evidence for the existence of any such consensus, still less for the notion that science is done by consensus].

The President thanked the speakers and expressed the Society’s gratitude to the Science and Public Policy Institute for sponsoring the debate. Hon. Members filed out of the Debating Chamber, built to resemble the interior of the House of Commons, and passed either side of the brass division-pole at the main door – Ayes to the right 135, Noes to the left 110. Motion carried.

Words of wisdom in global warming

I got this picture from cichlid-forum.com I would assume that the official reference would be NASA or Hubbel but I’m not sure. It is a shot from space of Lake Tanganyika on a pretty clear day in that region.
this is a copy of a response from Unprecedented Warming in Lake Tananyika thread over at Mr. Watt’s site.
Pat Moffitt says:
May 22, 2010 at 8:11 am
1personofdifference

The claim by Tierney and others is that in this relatively nutrient poor lake- primary productivity is a function of upwelling of the nutrient stores from the lake’s deeper waters. The lake has a relatively low thermal (density) gradient meaning it takes a good deal of wind to disrupt the lakes stability and bring the relatively more nutrient rich waters to the surface.

Tierney assumes that winds are higher in periods of aridity (cooler periods) and thus lake productivity. Her cores assume that productivity is linked to biogenic silica (BSI) production– basically diatoms. Tierney shows a correlation between BSI and the TEX86 lake surface temperatures as support for the link between increasing temperature and declining productivity. Tierney assumes that the increasing water temperatures have led to greater stability of the water column making it both more difficult to turn over the water column and cycle the nutrients as well as reducing the intensity of the required winds. She draws on support from Verburg of increasing lake clarity as further evidence of declining production. She then links this decline in primary production to a possible decline in fish biomass.

There are a number of concerns with Tierney’s basic assumptions and best summarized in Victor Langenberg’s 2008 thesis (Wageningen University) On the Limnology of Lake Tanganyika:
-The highest productivity on the lake is found on the end with the lowest winds- contradicting a major premise of Tierney’s that productivity and lake stability are linked
– there is no measured evidence by Secchi disc that the lake has been getting clearer(less productive)
-There is no evidence of a climate and fish biomass link
-There is evidence of severe overfishing
-The simple association of wind speed and temperature lake stability and lake upwelling-is not so simple (A wind model in the hydrodynamics of the Lake showed that temperature is of only secondary importance-LT Regional Fisheries Management Programme)
-Found that allochtonous (outside the lake) sources of nutrients were more important than assumed by Tierney
-Found no evidence for a decline in lake productivity and that the lake’s current production is within the expected range for this type of lake
-Phytoplankton chlorophylla has not materially changed from the 1970s to 1990s

Tierney draws heavily on the BSI (biogenic silica index) as evidence for the TEX86 lake surface temperatures (LSTs) being related to productivity. She assumes that diatoms are a major component and a representative proxy for productivity from the work of Verbum. Langenburg contradicts Verbum’s finding that diatoms are an indicator for Lake Tanganyika productivity finding picocyanobacteria may be the Lake’s dominant form of phytoplankton. A 2009 paper in Journal of Plankton Research by Stenuite et al supports this position . A paper by Hecky and Kling 1987. Phytoplankton ecology of the great lakes in the rift valleys of Central Africa. Arch. Hydrobiol., Beih. Ergebn. Limnol., 25, 197–228 found that in Africa rift lakes upwelling is associated with diatom production and stratification stability with the production of cyanobacteria.
A presentation by Hecky and Verburg http://www.espp.msu.edu/climatechange/…/Physical%20and%20Ecological%20Responses%20of%20the%20Great%20 showed the switch from cyanobacteria in the wet season (warm) to diatoms in the dry season (cool) on an annual basis. The cyanobacteria do not appear as biogenic silica in the cores and as such will not be measured as productivity.

Tierney’s correlation of BSI with LST may be nothing more than diatoms being relatively more plentiful in periods of lake upwelling (aridity and high T) and cyanobacteria during periods of low upwelling (wet, low T and stable stratification). Tierney’s BSI as a result may say nothing about the overall changes in productivity of the lake. (The BSI simply reflecting the Lake’s primary productivity mode switching between cyano bacteria and diatoms.) Without a reliable proxy for total productivity the assumed correlations to temperature and fishery catch becomes less grounded.

You have commented on the heat from thermal vents- and direct you to comments made by Coulter (1968?) before the Banza vents were discovered. http://www.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_13/issue_2/0385.pdf He proposed the possibility of heat flow at the bottom of the lake to explain the apparent lack of an expected salinity gradient and that given the depth of the lake and hydraulic residence time only small inputs of heat would be required to produce deep lake convection currents. Deep water generated convection currents would make the nutrient dynamics far more complicated than that proposed by Tierney’s simple wind/temperature mixing.

Tierney has acknowledged a “potentially” large role for overfishing in her Nature paper- however the media interviews have tended to diminish the relative threat of overfishing. There have been over two decades work trying to get the multiple interests and nations involved in the Lake fishery to agree to an enforceable/workable fishery harvest plan. Pointing a misguided finger of blame at global warming may very well undo these vital efforts. If so- the threat of global warming may have a far greater impact on the Lake and the food supply to its residents than any warming- real or imagined.

The Good Ol’ Boys strike again

I want to draw attention to my new page, under the Bullies in America parent page.
bullies-who-pose-as-scientists-and-educators
There is a new group of bullies in town. They are following in the footsteps of their Evolution counterparts.
The movie, “Expelled” by Ben Stein describes how many Scientists and Educators who have turned and started teaching a comparative curriculum showing Intelligent Design and Evolution side by side are being attacked in some cases physically, but quite often emotionally, financially, and among peers by refusing to publish their work in peer reviewed journals and squashing their ability to go on speaking circuits and in some cases causing them to lose their jobs. This same thing is now occurring more and more often in the struggle of the skeptics vs. the warmist elitists. It is like the warmist crowd is doing a re-enactment of the Spanish Inquisition in which religious zealots are attempting to wipe out a heresy by accusing good men of crimes they never committed.

And they Wonder why I want to Write a Book?

I’ve posted 5 articles in peer reviewed journals that are respected by both sides of the AGW coin in the http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=73&&n=201#comments thread.

They are so blinded by their religious worship of the AGW mantra that the best they could come up with is what is the wattage of the volcanic thermal vents?

Really? They take two core samplings from the lake bed from undisclosed locations with thousands of thermal vents in the lake bottom as well as volcanic tectonic shifting giving off heat trends in the area and the best they can come up with is what is the wattage of the volcanic thermal vents?

I feel like Christopher Lloyd in Back to the future 1…. 20,000 gigawatts? my gosh what was I thinking?
What is the wattage of volcanic thermal vents? “what was I thinking?”

Here I present 5 articles from well known and respected peer reviewed journals that present a viable possibility of other natural sources besides AGW and the best I get is what is the wattage of volcanic thermal vents.

Could they be playing a delayed April fools joke on me?

Tectonic Uplift and Eastern Africa Aridification – in Science Journal

This has some very interesting information in it that could also be a cause of any increased warming that would deny AGW
Science 313, 1419 (2006);
Pierre Sepulchre, et al.
Tectonic Uplift and Eastern Africa Aridification
DOI: 10.1126/science.1129158